Go on tell us how you really feel don't hold back now.

And remember it wasnt the EU that made us give up comonwealth prefered trade it was the WTO allowing america to sue us over Chica freaking bananas!

and £4trillion? are you a mail reader? or something by murdoch perhaps? we're not even at £1trillion yet we wont hit 4 till sometime in the 2050's at the earliest.

Plus you get to get groped/scanned!

You really compare the UK with Greece, seriously? The greek economy was in no fit state since...

I always thought, it was a banking crisis and ultimately not sufficient regulation and overseeing of financial risks that was drawing Ireland into the abyss. Wrong risk management lead to an unsustainable housing boom like in the US. Well and then the irish government guaranteed for all the debt of a weak but oversized financial sector... turned out you can't make worse decisions than that.

And exactly what do people here have against China? Just because they look different? :)

Well, Britain had its housing bubble burst in what? The ninties? I forget, but I would imagine they learned a very hard lesson back then, consequently I dont think they will be too badly affected this time, regarding property.

What happened in Ireland was that a bunch of foreign banks and investors, invested in a couple of banks, who's sole business was investing in property developers, they had no core banking business, like high street branches for mom and pop savers and small and medium business' and served no purpose other than speculation in real estate.
They were also doing illegal stuff like buying their own shares and hiding the loans they took, to purchase those shares, with help from a similar bank.

Naturally the bubble burst and they went out of business, unfortunately the other irish banks had loans outstanding with these banks and thus came under severe pressure at this stage.

The irish government made a decisions to guarantee ALL the banks, to stop a run on capital out of the country, Unfortunately this included the people that invested in the property banks. So, the irish debt isnt really "soverign" debt, ie. owed by the country, its based on a guarantee the government made to cover the losses made by what were really people gambling on the property market continuing to grow.

Naturally the irish people felt extremely burdened, to have to pay the debts of these gamblers, but the government of the time locked thems into a legally binding contract to pay these debts.

The debt I think is clearable under the original arrangements made, but after the meeting yesterday, I think that the new repayment terms will be more favourable and take alot of the sting out of the crisis.

If the bond holders (speculators) were left to swing, it would reduce the burden significantly, but on saying that, if it did happen, then it would be hard to get furture investors to consider investing in ireland.

This is my understanding of the situation.

Yep, the drop in house prices in Ireland was a result of the building industry building too much property and the banks suddenly not able to lend anywhere near enough money to homeowners. The drop in prices was the result, not the cause.

The last housing bubble here in the UK burst in 1992, due to Britain being forced to leave the ERM on Black Wednesday. Interest rates went up to ~18%, and people couldn't pay their mortgages. Lessons were learned - Labour lent on the banks in this recession to avoid home reposessions this time round, companies moved staff part-time rather than make them redundant, and the Conservatives are desperately trying to reduce the deficit rather than let interest rates rise. Inflation is still a problem though.

It is not really the same thing, because EU is not, at least yet, a federal state like US is. Ok, nowadays we seem to have a "president" in EU, but I don't remember voting for him or his adversaries, if there were some. How many official languages are there in US, and how many in EU?

I haven't completely made up my mind what to think about EU. In the past I was much more "EU positive", but nowadays EU seems to become politically more and more what is not considered normal or positive in Finland: less transparency in decision-making, some small and untouchable elite group decides things without people's approval etc., past agreements don't matter (like EU's agreements on what is the acceptable level of budget deficit (when small countries like Finland break the rule even little => sanctions, but when big countries like Italy/France/Germany does worse, suddenly there is no reaction whatsoever) or whether EU countries are supposed to bail out each others, like we are now doing to Greece/Portugal/Ireland) The way of doing politics in south European countries just seem to be so much different to what we in north are used to. No thanks.

I'd still like to keep the monetary union and Schengen agreement, but I don't want EU to become a federal state. Also, I think maybe there should be a couple of different monetary unions in Europe because it is so hard to fit all EU countries under the same currency. Well, unless EU really comes a federal state where EU closely regulates each country's economy, in practical level.



Ps. One thing I never understand (and it may be my assumption is wrong): why in UK there seems to be so much complaining about Euro, and people there seem to wish all the bad for Euro, and EU in general?

If I lived in UK, I'd think I'd be mostly indifferent about Euro, because UK does not use Euro and probably never will. Does UK e.g. feel strong EU would be a (economic or military) threat to them, or what is it? Is it because Germany is pretty much in the leader role in EU?

I guess the main reason we are slightly antagonistic towards the EU is two-fold - we see a lot of money disappear to the EU and its unelected officials, and the results aren't publicised, and also we didn't ever vote to join the EU, and what it is now is very different to what it was when we joined. Most people in Britain seem to favour something like Switzerland - free trade and posibly free movement of labour, but that's about it. Which ironically is what the EU was originally set up as :)

It's not really hostility to France of Germany, generally the UK likes the other countries in Europe.

Edit - A federal state works in the US because the people of the East Coast are happy to subsidise Alaska etc. West Germany was happy to subsidise East Germany because the people wanted to. Germany doesn't want to subsidise Greece, let alone Spain etc. The UK definitely doesn't want to subsidise Greece whilst sorting out its own problems. The Euro's main problem is that the leaders and the people want different things - the political leaders are prepared to subsidise each other, but the people are much more skeptical, which never works out in a democracy.

Sorry for editing your post timppu :)

Its also annoying when the bigger countries try to use the current economic instability, to browbeat the smaller countries into giving tax concessions, eg. france trying to force ireland into charging a higher corp tax, to make france a more attractive country for foreign investment.

I think you hit the nail on the head vis a vis England and the EU, in the immortal words of John Cleese "Don't mention the war". A huge part of the british electorate fought in 1914 and 1939 to avoid being part of one huge euro country, I'm not quite sure if it is solely based on Germany, I think the british people still feel a sense of empire and dont want to be drawn into someone elses "empire".

Thats just my opinion though, not necessarily a fact :)

Honestly, when Ireland were told to vote again because they voted the wrong way, I learned everything I needed to know about the EU and the people behind it. Although I am somewhat disappointed that the Irish didn't then overwhelmingly vote 'no' on sheer principle.

Good luck with that one. Whether you like it or loathe it, I think only a fool would ever claim that the masterminds behind the EU aren't trying to forge some form of federal state.

You mean... like there was before the Euro was introduced?

For me, personally? It's because the politicians often seem (or have seemed) so intent on forcing us into the Euro, whether we want it or not. This is going to sound really selfish (and I apologise), but honestly, every time I hear about the Euro-zone's problems, I think "Yeah, tell me again how joining would be beneficial?"

I'm not really sure whether this is an "EU crisis" or "Euro crisis". Will e.g. Finland be hit by the crisis more than e.g. UK or Sweden will? Isn't the fact that Euro gets cheaper just good to Finnish export industry? :)

In fact, I think there's even less reason for Finland to take part into the EU bailouts than UK, because it is not the "Finnish" banks that have made bad investments into the problem countries. In my opinion, the countries whose banks have made stupid decisions should decide what to do with them. e.g. capitalize their banks, or whatever. Just like Finland had to do with its own banking crisis in early 90s. It is not Finland's job to bail out French, German, UK etc. banks in this crisis.

From politicians, I've seen only two solid (but still poor) arguments why Finland must take part into the bailouts:

1. Finnish export industry will be in trouble if the crisis widens.

2. If Finland refuses to help the problem countries, then in the future Finland will be ignored in EU decision-making, apparently because then other EU countries would be so pissed off to Finland.

Number one is true but still stupid, because that is true to any country with export industry, like Sweden, UK etc. who are not taking part in the new bailouts. Also, that argument would mean that Finland should also now send money to e.g. US, to help them with their economy crisis. After all, Finnish industry will be in trouble also if US hits the wall, right?

Number two, if true, would just demonstrate how undemocratic EU decision making is. We must pay to foreign banks and break EU rules about not bailing out other EU countries, just so that we can take part in EU decision making? As if the big countries like France and Germany don't dictate the most important decisions beforehand already now.

I think that's over-egging it, no-one is alive now who fought in WW-I, and only a few million who can remember WW-II as an adult. The sense of empire may still be a factor, but I personally still think it is more to do with being forced into a decision without the people choosing it, which is emphasised by the Murdoch press - the Ireland vote on the Lisbon treaty went down badly here, as did us not even getting a vote despite being promised.

I don't wish to go back to dozens of tiny currencies again, simply too inefficient. I think there are definite benefits for some countries with similar economics to have common currency. For example, I do believe Finland has in general benefitted from Euro, at least up until now. To me the worst option would be the Denmark model, where they have their own currency which is still fixed to Euro. What's the point of own currency then, other than sentimental reasons?

I don't see it as unnecessarily selfish for a country to make decisions that benefit mostly them. Or course UK should not join Euro, if it is deemed negative for UK. In that regard, UK does not owe anything to EU. I don't think any country, who feels they would not benefit from it in the end, should join it.

There are of course many aspects to this. One argument about joining euro I've heard (no idea how true it is) is that when you are outside (but still in EU), you can't take part in most of the decision making that will still closely affect you, if you want to take part into e.g. EU trade.

I just wonder what are the downsides of having one's own currency in a devaluation process? It kind of devalues any capital that one might posses in the own currency and makes ressources like oil more expensive. This leads to inflation and devalues capital assets even more. Finally corporations become cheaper for companies from outside, making sellouts more likely. And also any government bonds hold by foreigner lose value which should result in roaring interest rates. But here comes the point. In the UK bond rates are not much higher than german ones. This is puzzling. It seems to me like the obvious benefit of devalueing a currency is that you can cheat on foreign bond holders (like US/China) but somehow in the case of the UK it does not translate in increasing risk premiums.

On the other hand, the Euro area could do the same. Also devalue. Then exports will increase and we only have to handle the imbalances within the area. But then not everybody can devalue at the same time... *sigh*. Balance is the core problems. There is by far not enough reputation returning for what we germans are doing and giving for Mother Europe. *sigh again* :))

That's a good point and may well be true, but it must be also said that people don't really believe anymore this is about saving a country (and the people), but the banks who have lent money to them. People all over the world were eager to help Japan, or years earlier Thailand and other SE Asian countries, when the two tsunamis hit them.

For saving banks and gamblers' money, there's much less sympathy, no matter which country. Of course for those countries where these problem banks are, it is benefical if there is a joint effort to save them because otherwise they would have to help them alone (like they should, actually).

Also, the Argentine crisis case implies that IMF's actions are primarily geared to save investors and banks, not a country and its people like politicians say. Or then IMF simply has really incompetent people.

While I do occasionally read the Daily Phail for a laugh, it's not my news service, or even services, of choice. And I haven't touched a Murdoch paper since the early 1990s.

I'm not talking about JUST the base debt. I'm talking of the total we'll end up paying before we START paying off the base debt. Also including Pensions, and PFI schemes they have to fund from out of tax money. :facepalm:
It's a subject many papers and news programs shy away from...the TOTAL debt we owe. Probably to minimise public panic or something.

You know, if Labour had won outright the 2010 election, we'd be back before the IMF asking for more money, right about now. Just like last time they were in office, in the 1970s.
And I don't know where you got 2050 from, because the government itself (last November) says the total debt will probably hit £10trillion by 2015....Thank you very much, Labour. :\
And don't forget, the total debt is different to the National Deficit - which is only the amount we're (the government) is spending over the taxes it raised that fiscal year). A MUCH lower figure. Cut public spending, get back to a Surplus budget, (to rebuild the treasury for leaner years), pay off the interest payments and then pay off the base debt. Keep LIEbour out of government until such time as they can PROVE they have a competent mathematician/accountant in charge of the budget, and probably not even then.....

As for the Commonwealth, we gave that up ourselves. One of the worst mistakes we made since WW2. Well, "gave up" is perhaps a little harsh. "Let slide into disrepair" is probably closer. It just happened to coincide, mostly, with the then-current governments decisions to "integrate" into the EU closer and closer and closer. And that was DECADES before the 1997 WTO ruling of a "level playing field for all banana suppliers".

Did you know, UK TWICE rejected France's application to join the Commonwealth, over, and during the Suez Crisis, in 1956? ;)
That's what probably gave them reason to join with Germany, Italy and Benelux to create the EEC (forerunner to today's EU)...and they vetoed the UK's membership application in the early 60s...(on the grounds it would open Europe to undue American influence)...De Gaulle ¬¬

spite, eh? :rolleyes:

Edit : Closing parenthesis, last paragraph.