Bollitics - Ireland, the Euro and the future of the EU

[Awol]

It is much better to shape the EU from the inside rather than being on the outside and wishing it would change to suit you.

If you were not a member then I'm not sure why that be a concern?

As Michelsen pointed out it's essentially a Franco-Teutonic mafia so the idea that the UK could shape the EU to suit us by remaining members is totally unrealistic.

[LondonLax]

It is much better to shape the EU from the inside rather than being on the outside and wishing it would change to suit you.

If you were not a member then I'm not sure why that be a concern?

As Michelsen pointed out it's essentially a Franco-Teutonic mafia so the idea that the UK could shape the EU to suit us by remaining members is totally unrealistic.

A massive economic block on the UK's doorstep and you don't think the UK would be interested in how it is run??

[Awol]

It is much better to shape the EU from the inside rather than being on the outside and wishing it would change to suit you.

If you were not a member then I'm not sure why that be a concern?

As Michelsen pointed out it's essentially a Franco-Teutonic mafia so the idea that the UK could shape the EU to suit us by remaining members is totally unrealistic.

A massive economic block on the UK's doorstep and you don't think the UK would be interested in how it is run??

As long as we can trade with the EU on mutually acceptable terms then what business is it of ours? Besides we already sit within an alternative block that contains the largest population on earth in the Commonwealth. It is not, as Michelsen suggests, harking back to glory days of Empire (they were long gone by the time we joined the EEC in 1973) but we did turn our backs on the single largest market in the world by joining the EEC - and one with which we ran a trade surplus every year.

Getting those free trade agreements back might be difficult but probably not impossible and it would be an excellent thing for UK manufacturing to name just one area.

[El Zen]

As Michelsen pointed out it's essentially a Franco-Teutonic mafia so the idea that the UK could shape the EU to suit us by remaining members is totally unrealistic.

For starters, as full members you actually have a say...

The EU may be dominated by Germany and France with their size and economic power, and because many other countries look to these two for leadership. But it's not as if the other countries' voices aren't heard at all. Especially not a country of Britain's size.

[El Zen]

Besides we already sit within an alternative block that contains the largest population on earth in the Commonwealth. It is not, as Michelsen suggests, harking back to glory days of Empire (they were long gone by the time we joined the EEC in 1973) but we did turn our backs on the single largest market in the world by joining the EEC - and one with which we ran a trade surplus every year.

Then why on earth did you join the EEC then?

[Awol]

Besides we already sit within an alternative block that contains the largest population on earth in the Commonwealth. It is not, as Michelsen suggests, harking back to glory days of Empire (they were long gone by the time we joined the EEC in 1973) but we did turn our backs on the single largest market in the world by joining the EEC - and one with which we ran a trade surplus every year.

Then why on earth did you join the EEC then?

That is an excellent question but one for my parents generation. They certainly didn't think they were joining what the EU has now become. For the sake of democracy the public needs to be consulted on whether we now consent to membership of an entirely different animal to that joined in 1973.

The big three all know it and they also know (if consistent opinion polls are to be believed) that the public would vote to leave, so they all promise and then deny a referendum. Democracy in action, lol.

[peterms]

...we already sit within an alternative block that contains the largest population on earth in the Commonwealth. It is not, as Michelsen suggests, harking back to glory days of Empire (they were long gone by the time we joined the EEC in 1973) but we did turn our backs on the single largest market in the world by joining the EEC - and one with which we ran a trade surplus every year.

Getting those free trade agreements back might be difficult but probably not impossible and it would be an excellent thing for UK manufacturing to name just one area.

From the point of view of the other commonwealth countries, if you are going to join some sort of economic bloc, you might choose something that makes sense geographically, or because the other countries' specialisms are complementary to yours, for example Australia and Japan have a pretty good trade with each other.

Why would you choose a group of countries based on a common history of previous colonial exploitation by one particular country? What would be the point?

[Awol]

From the point of view of the other commonwealth countries, if you are going to join some sort of economic bloc, you might choose something that makes sense geographically, or because the other countries' specialisms are complementary to yours, for example Australia and Japan have a pretty good trade with each other.

Why would you choose a group of countries based on a common history of previous colonial exploitation by one particular country? What would be the point?

My bold: Many of those countries owe their development into mature states to British "colonial exploitation", although I'm sure I'll never convince you that the Empire wasn't simply a one way street.

Anyway, the point is that the Commonwealth is a vast marketplace and the geography is really irrelevant, given that we already trade with them anyway, just behind tarriff barriers. Many Commonwealth countries have vast natural resources we could certainly benefit from, in return we have a high end skills base for manufacturing and other areas that can benefit some of them and their continued development.

[mjmooney]

Many Commonwealth countries have vast natural resources we could certainly benefit from, in return we have a high end skills base for manufacturing and other areas that can benefit some of them and their continued development.

I must admit to being a complete ignoramus when it comes to economics, but it does seem (to my simple mind) to make sense to trade with countries that are very different to your own, rather than ones which are very similar.

But then maybe the idea is more that the EU should do their trade as a superstate with the third world countries, and (in theory), share the profits?

Like I say, not my strong suit, all this !

[peterms]

I must admit to being a complete ignoramus when it comes to economics

You're George Osborne?

[Awol]

it does seem..to make sense to trade with countries that are very different to your own, rather than ones which are very similar.

Exactly and the idea that you're either in the EU or can't trade with it fullstop is nonsense. It's not a case of one or the other but how we as a sovereign nation can best prosper. Hitching our wagon to a bunch of at best stagnating economies (Germany aside) at the expense of more profitable relationships is simply bonkers.

But then maybe the idea is more that the EU should do their trade as a superstate with the third world countries, and (in theory), share the profits?

No, individual members still fight it out with each other to win business in external markets, even if the rules of that trade between member states and those countries are set by the EU. For example we cannot set bilateral tarriff arrangements with countries outside Europe because the EU prohibits it. Where is the sense in restricting ourselves like that?

[peterms]

My bold: Many of those countries owe their development into mature states to British "colonial exploitation", although I'm sure I'll never convince you that the Empire wasn't simply a one way street.

Even if those countries agreed with you (and I doubt they would), it sounds like creating a trade bloc based on nostalgia rather than an evaluation of which countries would gain most mutual benefit from trading with each other.

Anyway, the point is that the Commonwealth is a vast marketplace and the geography is really irrelevant, given that we already trade with them anyway, just behind tariff barriers. Many Commonwealth countries have vast natural resources we could certainly benefit from, in return we have a high end skills base for manufacturing and other areas that can benefit some of them and their continued development.

Trade between countries is usually beneficial, though sometimes exploitative. The question remains if each of the commonwealth countries were now considering entering a trade bloc with a group of others, why this particular grouping rather than any other would be the best. I just can't see why it would. To use the Australian example again, doesn't it make far more sense for Australia and Japan to work in concert, than say Australia and Kenya or any other random country?

[Gringo]

But then maybe the idea is more that the EU should do their trade as a superstate with the third world countries, and (in theory), share the profits?

Well the EU do a bit of this - if you go back to 2005 there was a row with the chinese over the quota of clothes allowed to be imported - this wasn't really sharing the profits but protecting certain members. The agricultural policy also protects certain member countries whilst harming third world countries that would be able to compete without the subsidies. The other champions of economic freedom, the US of A also operate similar protectionist measures.

[Awol]

Even if those countries agreed with you (and I doubt they would)

I used to manage an office in Bangalore and while there was certainly some resentment about empire among the businessmen I socialised with, there was also tacit acknowledgement that they would not be where they are now if the British had never been there. As I said, Empire not all good but by no means all bad either.

it sounds like creating a trade bloc based on nostalgia rather than an evaluation of which countries would gain most mutual benefit from trading with each other.

Not nostalgia, pragmatism. The block already exists, is vast and there would be something for everyone involved. In addition it excludes the two largest economies in the world offering a measure of advantage to its members for an internal market. What's the problem with that?

To use the Australian example again, doesn't it make far more sense for Australia and Japan to work in concert, than say Australia and Kenya or any other random country?

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? What is to stop Australia forming bilateral trade relations with Japan while also being part of another free trade area within the Commonwealth? People seem determined to make these scenarios an either/or choice when they don't need to be.

[peterms]

...there was also tacit acknowledgement that they would not be where they are now if the British had never been there...

Quite.

Not nostalgia, pragmatism. The block already exists, is vast and there would be something for everyone involved. In addition it excludes the two largest economies in the world offering a measure of advantage to its members for an internal market. What's the problem with that?

But in what sense does the commonwealth exist now? What does it actually do, apart from organise a sporting event every few years?

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? What is to stop Australia forming bilateral trade relations with Japan while also being part of another free trade area within the Commonwealth? People seem determined to make these scenarios an either/or choice when they don't need to be.

I assumed you meant there would be some sort of preferential trading status with the bloc, which wouldn't prevent trade with others but would make it less advantageous than otherwise, and to that extent it would have an either/or quality about it. If not, then in what sense would it be an economic bloc?

[Chindie]

But then maybe the idea is more that the EU should do their trade as a superstate with the third world countries, and (in theory), share the profits?

Partly related, part of the reasoning behind the EU's quick expansion east was to get as much of Eastern Europe on side to exploit as fast as possible, opening new markets and brain/brawn draining the states that were newly ascended (if you take the entirely cynical view, which has merit).

It also does deals for itself with the countries on the periphery, like Morrocco for similar reasons. The EU has put it's arm round the shoulders of a number of countries on it's borders and said 'You probably can't come in, but we'll give you a pass for our benefit and yours... you won't be a member, but you'll be a friendly face'. This include pretty much all of North Africa for example. See the European Neighbourhood Policy for more.

[peterms]

My bold: Many of those countries owe their development into mature states to British "colonial exploitation", although I'm sure I'll never convince you that the Empire wasn't simply a one way street.

News from The Front. More detail in the full story.

I wonder if we can be counted a mature state yet, and if so, when we reached that state of grace.

This is just from today's paper. I didn't go looking for stuff. Sounds like Taliban + Gaddafi + Mugabe to me.

Highly embarrassing colonial-era files detailing the British army's repressive tactics against Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya during the 1950s will be revealed in a landmark compensation case.

The discovery of thousands of documents withheld for decades from the Kenyan government will raise awkward questions about the Foreign Office's attempt to deny liability for the allegedly systematic mistreatment of thousands of Kikuyu victims prior to independence.

The case, brought by four survivors of the notorious detention camps operated by the colonial authorities could also set a precedent by forcing the release of files relating to other colonies once controlled by the UK.

During the so-called "Emergency", detainees were subjected to arbitrary killings, castrations, sexual abuse, forced labour, starvation and violence from camp guards, lawyers for the detainees will argue in the high court on Thursday.

Among those detained and abused was Barack Obama's grandfather.

The UK government denies that mistreatment was as widespread as alleged. In the past it has relied on an obscure legal precedent relating to Patagonian toothfish which states that responsibility for acts committed by a colonial government pass to the new, successor government at independence.

Thank god for our civilising influence.

Though relying on a judgement about Patagonian toothfish as a precedent does show a certain admirable low cunning, I admit.

[Awol]

Thank god for our civilising influence.

Not all good, not all bad. At least we got them to stop eating each other.

[snowychap]

Portugal calls for EU financial bail-out

Portugal's caretaker prime minister Jose Socrates has said that he has asked the European Union for financial assistance.

Mr Socrates said the country was "at too much risk that it shouldn't be exposed to".

The government has long resisted asking for aid but last week admitted that it had missed its 2010 budget deficit target.

Portugal follows Greece and the Irish Republic in seeking a bail-out.

"I always said asking for foreign aid would be the final way to go but we have reached the moment," Mr Socrates said.

"Above all, it's in the national interest."

He did not say how much aid Portugal would ask for. Negotiations will now be underway and the BBC's business editor Robert Peston said rescue loans could amount to as much as 80bn euros ($115bn; £70bn).

Mr Socrates was speaking after Finance Minister Fernando Teixeira dos Santos said it was necessary to resort to financial aid from the EU.

Earlier, the government raised about 1bn euros after tapping the financial markets in order to repay loans, but will have to pay a higher interest rate to lenders.

The country's cost of borrowing has risen sharply since the minority Socialist government resigned last month after its proposed tougher austerity measures were defeated in parliament.

[Awol]

They are getting bailed out because they couldn't get their latest austerity measures through Parliament, so how are they going to comply with the terms of a bailout they can't afford and how will they get domestic agreement for them?

Default is the logical option but doing so would bring down the whole rotten european banking system.