Has the politico-economic situation in the EU changed your stance?

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....Edit: and proof should you ever require it. It's just been announced that the EC has formally proposed that that the EFSM is to be used for emergency funds and that all 28 members will contribute. Basically, our guarentee is now null and void.

You misunderstand.

The EFSM already exists, all 28 EU nations have already contributed to it. No one is being asked to contribute any more money.

The UK (and the Czech republic) however, do not like the idea of using the EFSM for the purposes of a sovereign bailout, because that's not what it was set up to do. The UK does not like it because of the risk that Greece will fail to repay any loans to the EFSM, and the risk that the UK would bear a proportion of that loss.

Obviously that is not the plan. The plan is that the money granted to Greece by the ESM will be used to repay the loan received by Greece under the EFSM. The reason that the EC want to use the EFSM at this point, is that Greece urgently needs €7 billion now, and the EFSM has the capability of providing that sum.

At the moment it appears "different options for collateralisation (are) being explored" i.e. they are trying to find a way of making sure that non EZ states don't bear any risk.

Jason74

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was wondering what it would take for those who know they will vote to stay in the EU, to even consider their view.

I think this question hits the nail on the head. Of your options, I’m very much in the “maybe” camp following all of this. My starting point is that I’m very much in favour of the idea of the EU, and think that a certain amount of common policy across the EU is a good thing. Economically speaking, I think that the EU has more benefits than drawbacks for us as a Nation, and I don’t share the fears that some have around the perceived negative side of EU membership in respect of issues like immigration.


So up to now, I’ve been very much on the “in” side of the debate. But yes, the actions of the EU over the past few Months leave me questioning that position. I’m not disputing that previous Greek Governments have largely been the architects of their Country’s misfortune, and would agree that some of Syriza’s language has been extremely unhelpful. But none of that changes the fact that the Greek crisis was not the creation of the current Greek Government, and that their fundamental position that the debt burden on the Greek State is unsustainable is correct (as confirmed only today by the IMF).


Given the above, the way that the EU has handled the Greek crisis has been appalling. Both the economic reality of the situation and the process of democracy have been largely ignored (and in the latter case, treated with contempt) because they don’t fit the pre conceived ideas of the EU institutions. That is a real worry, and makes the EU in its current form much less appealing. The rigidness of how the EU has stuck to its doctrine also raises questions as to how much the EU is capable of reform to address these issues in the future.


For all of the above, I think the economic argument is still very much in favour of staying, and I have no doubt that for all of it faults, we would be a little poorer outside the EU than in it (especially given how much the Greek issue has demonstrated how the EU deals with countries that dare to challenge it through democracy). But the EU has shown itself to be a somewhat vindictive organisation in recent weeks, to the point where (for the first time) I find myself wondering whether the inevitable economic price of leaving the EU is in fact on that might be worth paying.

antrobus

Jason74 wrote: »

.... I’m not disputing that previous Greek Governments have largely been the architects of their Country’s misfortune, and would agree that some of Syriza’s language has been extremely unhelpful.....

Many of Syriza’s actions have also "been extremely unhelpful".

Jason74 wrote: »

....But none of that changes the fact that the Greek crisis was not the creation of the current Greek Government, ...

So what? Are you arguing that all a nation has to do is to have an election and install a new government in order to absolve itself of any responsibility for the actions of its previous governments?

Jason74 wrote: »

and that their fundamental position that the debt burden on the Greek State is unsustainable is correct (as confirmed only today by the IMF).

That has never been the issue.

Jason74 wrote: »

Given the above, the way that the EU has handled the Greek crisis has been appalling. Both the economic reality of the situation ....

The economic reality of the situation is that six months of government by Syriza has resulted in the government running out of money, the closure of the banking system, and capital controls.

Jason74 wrote: »

and the process of democracy have been largely ignored (and in the latter case, treated with contempt) because they don’t fit the pre conceived ideas of the EU institutions.....

The only people who have ignored the process of democracy and treated it with contempt are Syriza, who held a referendum, and then ignored the result.

Jason74 wrote: »

That is a real worry, and makes the EU in its current form much less appealing. The rigidness of how the EU has stuck to its doctrine also raises questions as to how much the EU is capable of reform to address these issues in the future...

What do you think ever closer union means?

Jason74 wrote: »

...
For all of the above, I think the economic argument is still very much in favour of staying, and I have no doubt that for all of it faults, we would be a little poorer outside the EU than in it (especially given how much the Greek issue has demonstrated how the EU deals with countries that dare to challenge it through democracy). But the EU has shown itself to be a somewhat vindictive organisation in recent weeks, to the point where (for the first time) I find myself wondering whether the inevitable economic price of leaving the EU is in fact on that might be worth paying.

The economic argument is clear. Norman Lamont did the right thing when he got us that opt-out.

mwpt

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was wondering what it would take for those who know they will vote to stay in the EU, to even consider their view.

Btw, I just came back to this because I realised I hadn't answered this particular question. My other views, I've posted about, on the whole, the EU is beneficial for most, imo.

I am a non Brit, living in the UK, on an EU passport (11 years in UK). So I'm hardly best placed to answer, because I'm taking full advantage of the benefits of the EU. But, putting myself in the shoes of a Brit for a moment, what it would take for me to reconsider my views has of course many answers. But one answer stands out:

If it became mandatory for the UK to join the common currency, that would be an automatic "out" vote from me. If I was a Brit.

purch

shortchanged wrote: »

What happens to the poorer countries like Greece, Spain etc when the German economy is ready for an interest rate rise? Hmmm I wonder.

Exactly the same as has always happened (see 1992 for reference)

It would very likely be the case whether or not the EURO/ERM/No currency basket existed, or even if no EU existed at all.

The economies of Europe would still be very intertwined and Germany as the largest and strongest player would always have a huge influence over the economies of the smaller and weaker nations.

Jason74

antrobus wrote: »

Many of Syriza’s actions have also "been extremely unhelpful". . . ..etc

Clearly we disagree about where the responsibility for the Greek situation lies. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that Syriza are blameless in all this, and nor am I suggesting that Greece should get off “Scott free” for previous errors. But the fact is that Greece had already suffered massively prior to the election of the current Government, and the EU has to take some responsibility for the situation even reaching the point where people were so desperate that they voted for their current Government. Certainly Greece has already suffered plenty for its errors, and lets not forget, if things unravel further from here, the next step is probably Golden Dawn. For me, the blame for Greece’s predicament lies with the Governments who oversaw the creation of the problem, the EU / Creditors, and Syzria, in that order.





But in many ways, what the Greek side has or hasn’t done wrong is irrelevant to my answer to the question Graham asked. Graham asked whether the “political language and stance (of the EU)” has changed people’s views. Regardless of what the Greeks may or may not have done wrong, the fact is that In the last few weeks I’ve seen EU institutions push a country to the wall in an attempt to maintain a position that pretty much every independent observer recognises as incorrect. In doing so, they’ve shown themselves willing to impoverish an entire nation, along with a vindictive desire to “punish” (to directly quote a leading EU official) a country for daring to question the official line. Has that changed my view of the EU?. Absolutely it has.


And as for ever closer Union, yes, I know exactly what that means, and ever closer Union with an organisation that behaves like the EU as done in recent weeks is something I'm very wary of. Which is largely why for the first time, I'm questioning whether it may actually worth being a little poorer to be outside such a set up.

antrobus

Jason74 wrote: »

...Clearly we disagree about where the responsibility for the Greek situation lies. ...

I think that apportioning blame is pointless.

Jason74 wrote: »

....But in many ways, what the Greek side has or hasn’t done wrong is irrelevant to my answer to the question Graham asked. Graham asked whether the “political language and stance (of the EU)” has changed people’s views. Regardless of what the Greeks may or may not have done wrong, the fact is that In the last few weeks I’ve seen EU institutions push a country to the wall in an attempt to maintain a position that pretty much every independent observer recognises as incorrect. In doing so, they’ve shown themselves willing to impoverish an entire nation, along with a vindictive desire to “punish” (to directly quote a leading EU official) a country for daring to question the official line. Has that changed my view of the EU?. Absolutely it has.

And as for ever closer Union, yes, I know exactly what that means, and ever closer Union with an organisation that behaves like the EU as done in recent weeks is something I'm very wary of. Which is largely why for the first time, I'm questioning whether it may actually worth being a little poorer to be outside such a set up.

Ever closer union means that you surrender sovereignty to Brussels. (Or wherever the EU government is to be located.) Which means all those decisions about Greek VAT rates, and pensions, and what assets to privatise, would simply be made in Brussels, by the EZ as a whole. Greece itself, with only about 3% of the EZ population, would have very little say in the matter.

Therefore I don't see why people are complaining that poor little Greece is being forced to do what the rest of the EZ want done when it is the inevitable consequence of signing up for the EZ in the first place.

That is why I ask; what do you think ever closer union means?

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

out

if labour ever get their act back together and put together a few terms in government, i can see them shafting our economy again and i don't know that germany will have enough money to bail us out

Somerset

To answer Grahams question, I was a 'not sure'. My instinct was to vote no in the referendum because of what the EU has become, and what I think it will become. But the claims of economic damage to the UK gives pause for thought, broadly I don't know if it will/won't damage the UK or how much. Everyone has a conflicting opinion. So I was a floating referendum voter (still am I suppose). But two things about the Greek debacle are making me more 'no' orientated.


Firstly. I don't think the EU is capable of reform, and that seems to be one of Cameron's platforms - that we cam mould it in something more suitable/acceptable to the UK. It's too big - it's set on a path of economic/currency/tax/wage/benefits federalism - a broadly homogenous unit. It can't deviate. Fundamentally it's not an 'opt out' kind of institution. Greece, for all its self-inflicted wounds, shows that you will be battered into submission if you don't toe the line.


Secondly, I think the EU is inherently undemocratic. Democracy is actually dangerous to it - it's not about the will of the people (whoever they might be) it's about the will of the EU. Syzria were naïve in positioning themselves as 'yes to EU membership, no to austerity' because they couldn't deliver - but they won the election. Then the strange referendum where the Greek people repeated that. I appreciate saying something doesn't mean you get it, but the Greek people will get something they emphatically refused - twice. I also recall the Irish referendum (there may be others) where the initial answer was 'no' so they reframed it and got a 'yes'. What the people want doesn't count, because what a country wants doesn't count, because the country, for the EU to work, has to be absorbed into a more homogenous form. Federalism to work must equal anti-democratic.

RJP33

RUN_RABBIT_RUN wrote: »

out

if labour ever get their act back together and put together a few terms in government, i can see them shafting our economy again and i don't know that germany will have enough money to bail us out

Having a sovereign currency in that regard helps, unlike Greece we can print, practice quantative easing and devalue.

Oddly enough a lot of the same arguments for not leaving the EU are the same as the ones in the late 90s when the Euro was considered.