Thatcher right about the Euro

Quasar

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean it would have been easier to bail out Italy than bail out all and sundry

No, it would mean that there would have been more controls to begin with, the sort of controls that the larger EU could not impose later on because of so many different small, poorer countries joining and needing so much help to begin with. Italy was a very healthy economy when the first Six formed the European Community and there was also a stricter financial discipline for all six.

Jennifer_Jane

Quasar is completely correct, there are many Countries who now belong to the EU who should never be there because of their economies, their legal systems, their benefit systems etc. Too disparate from the original founding Countries, and therefore toxic to the model.

Kennyboy66

angrypirate wrote: »

Can we at least agree on one thing? If 11 European leaders had listened to her in a meeeting in 1990, then a lot of countries would have been better off. She was a minority of 1, voting against 11, battling against the single European currency. With the benefit of hindsight, is it not blinding obvious that this is one very big thing she was right about.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100211333/the-euro-cheerleaders-howe-kinnock-ashdown-were-wrong-and-margaret-thatcher-was-right-time-to-admit-it/

She was so right about it that the UK joined the ERM in October 1990 (while she was still in office).

Thatcher - always right even when she was wrong.

Thrugelmir

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I saw Mandelson very recently (2 - 3 months ago, perhaps) saying the Britain will go into the Euro; he said not at the moment, naturally, but we will be in it eventually. He was absolutely categoric, and strangely unchallenged by the BBC.

Mandelson is a great believer in open border trade and economic globalisation.

No great secret.

Quasar

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Quasar is completely correct, there are many Countries who now belong to the EU who should never be there because of their economies, their legal systems, their benefit systems etc. Too disparate from the original founding Countries, and therefore toxic to the model.

Unfortunately countries like Italy and Spain which is also a largish economy, took advantage of the laws allowing borrow borrow, spend spend. Come to think of it, they all did, with the exception perhaps of Germany (of whose exact financial position we never hear). Outside the EU, even the US has found itself with is arze on the floor - which is where the global financial house of cards began to fall. The UK is not that financially healthy either, if we are honest about it.

The problem is more global than European, and means that those countries PERCEIVED to be weaker, become weaker in reality as the others put pressure on them. Should the rest of the EU put pressure on the UK with its LARGER debt than most other EU countries, we'd see the same dance over here, although by having its own currency there may be a very long standoff.

It's not the actual money - it's just deciding who should be seen as risky or not. Most of the money is duff anyway, generated by obscure banking transactions and existing as electronic currency in computer networks. And doesn't the UK engage rather fondly in Quantitative Easing? That is the acceptable term for: just print money and then print some more. If Italy, Spain or Greece attempted to do that, they wouldn't be allowed to, and rightly so. Better a visible debt than an accruing half-visible one which, when it bites, it takes a big chunk off one's buttocks.

Euro or Pound or Dollar, the whole world is in the excreta, some places showing it a bit more than others.

Generali

Quasar wrote: »

No, it would mean that there would have been more controls to begin with, the sort of controls that the larger EU could not impose later on because of so many different small, poorer countries joining and needing so much help to begin with. Italy was a very healthy economy when the first Six formed the European Community and there was also a stricter financial discipline for all six.

Italy still has a healthy economy IMHO, the deficit isn't really a problem as such either. It only really has 2 big economic problems:

- a large outstanding debt from previous Governments
- loony employment laws which almost guarantee very high unemployment levels

The latter is easy to resolve. If it was done then the improvement in Government revenues would solve the first problem.

GDP per head in Italy is about the same as the UK and France and not too far behind (10%?) successful economies such as Australia.

Thrugelmir

Quasar wrote: »

with the exception perhaps of Germany (of whose exact financial position we never hear).

Germany has had the issues of unification to deal with. So much so, that Germany is only one of 2 European countries not to have a minimum wage. Perhaps why one reason they've managed to maintain overall competitiveness. Cheap unskilled labour force.

As Maggie preached a free market economy.

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Germany has had the issues of unification to deal with. So much so, that Germany is only one of 2 European countries not to have a minimum wage. Perhaps why one reason they've managed to maintain overall competitiveness. Cheap unskilled labour force.

As Maggie preached a free market economy.

They don't import BMWs, AUdis, Mercedes by the boat load either.

pqrdef

If we'd been in the euro, it would have been different. London not Frankfurt would have been the financial epicentre of the eurozone. Berlin would have been a long way away. The Germans wouldn't have been able to make such a spectacular mess of it.

Fact is of course, the Germans never wanted a eurozone with Britain in it, so they made sure we didn't join. We didn't win that one, they did.

Of course they're brilliant at converting victory to defeat. But once again they're taking us down with them. It's not like we're coming out ahead.

So once again we put out the flags and the bunting, bankrupt, crippled, and further forward in out national decline, and celebrate a great leader and a great victory.

purch

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

She was so right about it that the UK joined the ERM in October 1990 (while she was still in office).

Thatcher - always right even when she was wrong.

She also indulged Nigel Lawson and his infatuation with "shadowing" the Deutsche Mark during 1987/9 which led to the UK having a base rate far too low for the general economy which led directly to the problems faced in 1989 onwards.