Whither the euro?

[Huguenot]

That's a stupid leader based on a fallacy.

Policy strategies and white papers are invariably created by paid employees and consultants, with politicians only there to rubber stamp them for presentation.

The UK is no different in this respect. David Cameron and his cabinet don't create the strategy, his staff do that and they're unelected employees or apparatchiks. David Cameron doesn't implement the strategy either, that's done by civil servants.

In that sense the only thing that Monti's done is been transparent about this process.

The democratic bit is in the parliamentary voting that signs off the legislation. The politics is within the horsetrading necessary to win these votes.

Italy remains as democratic as it ever was, but at last it has a chance to succeed without the interference of highly factional politicans happy to destroy the country for personal gain.

Whatever you think about that, it's clearly a ridiculous assertion that this is somehow an argument to stay out of Europe.

If there's one thing that Murdoch papers DON'T want, it's the accountability of a democratic state. News International even operate their own secret police, and they don't like getting caught.

[????]

When you're in a hole stop digging Hugenot.....as an old Chancellor who had to go cap in hand to the INF once said. The Euro is doomed for all the reasons us 'tomato throwing' pragmatists pointted out and I have countless times on this thread and the other Euro one - you don't acknowledge or argue aginst these pragmatic realities you just make stuff up, insult or deliberately twist arguments Plus ca change

My Vision of a Euro or a workable single currency is simply one that has

A centralised bank/treasury with complete Fiscal authority and one chancellor/finance minsiter

A centralised political system to go along with this

The democratic support of the majority of the 'electorates' within this

Then I'm in

The Euro never had any of this and has been a dissater for us all and the ramifications will continue and possibly result in the actual break up of the EU....great vision

[Huguenot]

I don't know where you can justify comments such as 'has been a disaster for us all' when it plainly hasn't.

While you carry on with such ridiculous proclamations it will always be difficult to create a sensible debate with you.

The rest of your accusations are inaccurate or irrelevant. It seems to be you insulting me, but I've got no idea if you're twisting arguments because I've got no idea what you're going on about.

We were talking about Monti and you're talking about something else again?

As for 'making stuff up', that's ironic coming from you. I always try to support my arguments with data, as I'm just about to do here.

I don't think you've actaully got a clue what Europeans think about anything. I think you imagine that they're all as negative and parochial as some of your own views.

Here's what Europeans currently think on the Financial crisis and Europe's role within it.

They actually show an increase in faith in the European Union, and an increase in beleif in its strategic objectives.

Your claim regarding the Euro not having the support of the majority of the electorates is quite simply wrong. These figures from the 2010 summary:

Let's have a look at what Europeans think about fiscal integration:

What you see there is an increasing faith in pan European fiscal integration, and a massive majority of Europeans who see it as a way of getting ourselves out of this crisis. Up 2% across the board in only 12 months.

So can you stop calling me names yet?

[????]

From the sprinng 2011 summary....'currently' oh dear oh dear, even then I notice that the 26% of Europeans who thought that the EU was best posed to sort out the Financial crisis in spring 2010 had already fallen to 21% then. Are you aware even vagely what's going on back over here? I'd Like to see this done now. You really think you'd get those findings today? REALLY? Cut and pasting some out of date charts and misconstruing them and representing them as current fact doesn't suggest much for your grasp of the situation or is just being deliberately obtuse. Your reliance on cherry picked googled 'facts' perhaps suggests less ability to do some thinking yourself.

Can I remind you this thread is about the Euro and I'm just responding to your last post to me, a fairly rational way of operating unless I tediously copy your last post to me and then add comment.... may have been a week ago but just scroll up if you can't remember that far back.

Anyway, So how is the Euro proving a success in the grand scheme of things? What was good about the way it was set up? I don't need a lectureon the principles of monetary union, I understand them, I would just like to know how you think the Euro is panning out for Europe plaese?

Have the rational criticims as mentioned numerous times on this thread (but not ever addressed by you) of the Euro infact not been proved true or not? Please answer this....rather than cut and paste some vaguely related old research and go off on an obscure point and harp back about parochialism, it's fucking rude slurring people continually and we know you have form on that shit. I've posted several times why, in my opinion, the euro was flawed at its conception and that I am in favour of being in the EU you never come back on these points - it's like some wanky 6th form balloon debate trying to discuss this with not trying to deal with reasonable arguments put to you just trying to change arguments, misconstrue, shift arguments, anything but a grown up debate. And then infer that I'm an inward looking bigoted parochial.

What do you think of my vision - Which you asked for a few days ago? And I layed out in simple terms earlier Care to comment?

Please answer somer of these questions it's tedious trying to debate with you You argue black is white and then say "no I was talking about pink" and go on and on about little englanders (another one of your subtle insults/slurs and 'tomato throwers), not even having the courtesy to say that you recognise that there were many people who just criticised the Euro on pratical/pragmatic grounds. And certainly not trying to address these or their points - I guess becuase you haven't got a decent argument against them and can't find a decent cut an paste on google.

Some economist over here and even the ex-Editor of the FT have manned up and said they were wrong on the Euro, i suspect you may be the last man in the world saying how wonderful the Emperor's rags look....BECAUSE HUGE CANNOT BE WRONG

Where are the names I called you in my last post by the way? I just pointed out your MO this. I sometimes wonder if in you do ever actually read any ones elses posts?

I don't expect any direct answers to these points as normal. And like many others before me I'm rather sick of your teduious rude posturing.

[????]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Quids, are you being deliberately daft? The

> parasite element is because the other countries

> carry the risk of the common currency (such as

> Greek debt) whereas we only get the upside.

> Sarkozy is quite within his rights to tell

> Euro-sceptic little Englanders to keep their

> opinion to themselves. UK critics are like fat

> ugly mouthy grannies lecturing premiership

> managers.

>

> You endlessly crap on in your disparagement for

> 'visionaries', presumably because you'd prefer to

> hang out in the deadbeat world of yesterday, but

> the truth is that your own world is a tight little

> ball of criticism for just about anything that

> anybody else does to move on.

>

> Why don't you take a risk, snooky, and tell us

> about your own famous plan for the future which is

> so clever that there will be no opportunity for

> people like you to throw tomatos at it? ;-)

Here for you.

[DaveR]

"The democratic bit is in the parliamentary voting that signs off the legislation"

"Italy remains as democratic as it ever was"

This is so obviously wrong that something ought to be said. Pay attention H.

Italy, like most Western parliamentary democracies has a legislature and an executive. Te executive is commonly known as the 'government' and is responsible for proposing legislation to the legislature and carrying out other functions under inherent powers (foreign policy for example). In Italy, like the UK, the executive is formed as a result of parliamentary elections, conducted on the basis of policy positions, and there is therefore a democratic mandate to govern. However, Italy now has an entirely appointed executive who will govern not on the basis of policies voted on by the electorate but on the basis of what they think is best.

They will almost certainly do a better job of it than the last elected government, and that is the problem identified in the article. The euro created a scenario where sucessive governments in Italy, Greece and elsewhere had little incentive to consider the likely long term consequences of unsustainable public and private debt, and therefore little incentive to be straight with the electorate. That is bad for democracy.

[Huguenot]

This is not 'tedious rude posturing', if you're sick of anything it's probably your own bitterness. You're angry that your unsupported statements about what Europeans think continually turn out to be wrong.

To be honest I'm rather sick of you.

You accuse me of 'making things up' and when as usual I provide data to back up my arguments (which you have not), you attempt to diminish it.

I was responding to your insistence that Europeans didn't want or like the Euro, that they didn't get along with each other, and they didn't want further European integration.

You're simply wrong.

The Euro DOES have the majority support of the majority of the electorates, as does European integration.

The fact is that whilst having the Euro has its challenges, the majority of Europeans believe they're better off with it than without it.

You can read back five years of my posts on the subject of Europe, the Euro and integration. My line has consistently been that it will have its challenges and drawbacks, but in the final analysis it is necessary and overwhelmingly positive.

I have also always disagreed with you that Europeans don't want integration and don't want to support each other. Again I've provided data to support that view.

I do not accept views that paint Greeks or Italians as feckless workshy ingrates, nor do I consider them to be any less deserving at core than any other person I don't know.

I agree that the terms of some nations entry to the Euro were incorrectly set, and that this stored up problems that are correcting themselves now. I have never said anything otherwise on that subject.

However, unlike those in the financial markets I don't believe that the European project is founded on financial issues alone - it never was. There is a political long term objective with European integration that far exceeds the scope of these short term problems created predominantly by a credit squeeze, not the Euro.

If you choose not to see from that perspective, that's entirely your prerogative.

[DaveR]

"these short term problems created predominantly by a credit squeeze, not the Euro. "

H, this is the bone of contention, and this is where you are wrong. These are not short term problems and they are 100% the result of the establishment of the Euro, the risks that it created (i.e. a lack of fiscal and monetary discipline in weaker economies) and the failure to effectively address those risks. It took a serious economic downturn to reveal the problems, and the causes of that downturn are many and varied, but it is simply not sustainable to say none of this is to do with the euro. What people think about the euro and european integration is frankly irrelevant.

[Huguenot]

Quids has lomng contested that European integration is impossible because it's politically and socially unacceptable. He repeated the assertion in the previous post so it was worth clearing up.

The lack of fiscal and monetary discipline in the weaker economies existed anyway.

If countries like Greece hadn't joined the Euro they'd still have had those problems, but the lack of available credit a decade ago would have meant they'd have defaulted/devalued/implemented austerity budgets sooner rather than later.

One of the benefits of devaluation over austerity is that it's less publicly visible - instead of cutting public service salaries you just cut the value of the salary. It makes imports more expensive, but consequently drives internal economy and exports. So devaluation is marginally better than austerity, but it's mainly a political veneer.

Either way the Greeks would have suffered, it was just a matter of timing - which is where the biggest influence of the Euro lay.

[????]

Anyway Huge rather than argue with a horrible old bigot like me that the Euro was flawed from day 1, why don't you have a row with Mr Delors -[ that well known bigoted europhobic little englander....

Delors, Mea (and others) Culpa

You going to move your throne away from that tide anytime soon?

[Huguenot]

I agree with Delors.

I'll say it again Quids, just for you. The Euro has its challenges, we're having one now, but European integration is a critical objective to fight the UK's position in a world of diminishing resources and energy insecurity.

The Euro is not dead, and neither are Europeans implacably opposed to it or further integration.

[????]

I've always said that the Eiro makes esnse at the right time and with the right conditions. My issue, and many others, is that for pointing the flaws at its conception out (what Delors says) critics were branded, well actually slurred, as Europhobic, little englander, etc and no rational debate was allowed. The fact that even a broken clock is right twice a day meant that the UKIP and other idiots happened to be right on this too (but for the wrong reasons) didn't help the rational arguments against the Euro but these arguments were right and Delors and many others are now beginning to acknowledge this - still waiting for Hutton, although the Guardian is even beginning to move to a position of vague contrtition.

I still disagree with you on the outcome in that although I belive now it is the their only hope from catastrophe and thus in their best economic interest, I don't believe that the individual countries electorates (including the UK) are ready to accept fiscal unioin yet and that poses ENORMOUS problems for europe. The problem thus far has largely been economic it's increasingly going to be political.

[Huguenot]

I don't think Britain is ready for closer ties with Europe yet either, and I think the consequences will be very damaging for Britain.

Cameron's distancing approach to Europe strangely reveals his anxiety about the economic strength of united Europe. Even though ne wants fewer ties, he wants to remain at the top table in order to prevent the other nations from uniting.

It's a silly short sighted strategy, as he can't prevent them forming ties and judging by newspaper reports he's just pissing them off by carping from the sidelines. The only likely outcome is that Britain loses political and economic influence in Europe and the world.

[silverfox]

Even the losers get prizes in EU farce

Huge congratulations to Anthea McIntyre who has just become Britain?s newest MEP. Nobody voted for her ? she was appointed by the EU on the basis of having been the best loser in the last European elections back in 2009. I suppose as Brussels (or Berlin ? call it what you will) has recently appointed an entire government in Italy, we should consider ourselves lucky to have escaped so lightly.

McIntyre, a Conservative, was plucked from cheerful obscurity because the EU recently decided that there just weren?t enough MEPs to carry out the crucial task of bankrupting the world?s economy, and immediately decided there should be 18 more of them. Anthea is what we in Britain got out of the deal. I don?t remember voting for more MEPs, any more than I remember voting for Anthea. Eighteen more MEPs means an additional ?36m a year on your bill, incidentally.

(Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times today)

[Huguenot]

Rubbish from the beginning to the end, but hey silverfox, you believe anything that suits you, and nothing that doesn't, so what do you care?

[Huguenot]

Just in case there's anyone else out there willing to tell lies to reinforce prejudice...

European seats are elected on a proportional representation basis - you don't vote for the candidate, you vote for the party.

The votes for this seat were made in 2009, but McIntyre wasn't appointed to an MEP role until all countries had signed the Lisbon treaty which created the roles.

Hence this was not only reasonable, but entirely fair and saved money.

McIntyre will cost no additional money because it comes out of previously allocated European budgets.

The calculation of 2 million per MEP is childish, as it includes the fixed costs and overheads divided by total number of MEPs. Adding an additional MEP does not add 2 million to the bill.

Not only this, but the other 18 previously elected and finally appointed MEPs are from other countries, not Britain. So it could not be 36 million to the British taxpayer under any circumstances.

I'm only surprised at myself how frustrated I get with people like silverfox telling lies for undisclosed motivations.

[silverfox]

My point in posting that was because Brussels is full of non-entities like McIntyre who nobody has voted for and nobody has heard of and who would struggle to be elected to a parish council in Britain. They then enjoy huge salaries and outrageous expense allowances while sitting around making such earth shattering decisions such as what shape the bananas I eat should be.

Is it any wonder the PIIGS have had their snouts in the trough and Europe is on a precipice?

[Huguenot]

Well there you go, I proved you wrong.

First of all she was voted for in 2009 through proportional representation, and regarding her general electability she was voted into Hereford and Worcester county council first in 1977 and has been ever since.

Regarding your complaint about what MEPs do, this is no more or less valid that a complaint about what MPs do in general, so I shan't bore myself in responding to it.

Suffice to point out that you obviously don't know, so you should look it up before expressing an opinion to avoid looking silly.

[Huguenot]

Clearly the EU deals with many macro economic and security issues which may feel a little bit beyond the ordinary Joe, but just from the point of view of the average consumer, here's some of the things the EU does for you.

[Marmora Man]

The Euro has its challenges, we're having one now, but European integration is a critical objective to fight the UK's position in a world of diminishing resources and energy insecurity.

I can see that a rational argument can be made for ever greater European integration, I don't fully agree with the argument but it has legs and is worthy of debate - but defending the Euro because this long term political aim is up for discussion shows poor logic. Financial / currency integration must follow not precede political integration - otherwise you end up in the mess that the Euro is in.

[silverfox]

"...First of all she was voted for in 2009 through proportional representation, and regarding her general electability she was voted into Hereford and Worcester county council first in 1977 and has been ever since..."

I rest my case.

[Huguenot]

Really?

You said :"Brussels is full of non-entities like McIntyre who nobody has voted for and nobody has heard of and who would struggle to be elected to a parish council in Britain."

Except she's been elected 8 times...

Anyway, I suspect your argument is actually against proportional representation - a system I don't agree with myself, since it allows the party to select representatives rather than the people.

However, I would point out that it's the Conservative party (your best chums) that appointed her, so I wouldn't be too difficult about it if I were you?

[DaveR]

Back on topic, do we agree that Merkel has played her hand beautifully? After Berlusconi was sacrificed everyone expected her to bite the bullet and sign up to one form or another of 'big bazooka', but she is keeping everybody dangling just long enough to ensure that the future eurozone will effectively be run by the Bundesbank. The real poliitcal loser here is Sarkozy, who has been kidding himself that he is leading (or at least co-leading) the process, when in truth to the Germans he's just another fiscally indisciplined Southern European.

[silverfox]

Merkozy talking new treaty. Referendum here we come

[Huguenot]

I've got ten quid saying that any new Euro currency treaty won't ask the opinion of the UK, as it shouldn't.