Britain Considering Leaving the EU

[dystopian]

The latest exchange rate will show the fall as of yesterday continuing.

Nope. The exact opposite is the case.

You picked an article from April. Since then, the Euro has clearly rebounded, and shows no sign of going back to April levels. There is a clear upward trend. But nice try.

Something has to be wrong in this scenario somewhere.

Why can't a country just say: "We're broke, we default! sorry" but go on from there. Of course this means no more loans/bailouts.

But then pick up the pieces, with hardship etc., bad times, but slowly start doing the "right thing" instead of all the wrong things they've been doing, and slowly recover?

And why couldn't they continue using the Euro, as the most stable currency, even though they defaulted?

Did you not read a word of what I said? No more loans/bailouts means the Greeks will withdraw their money en-masse; the banks will collapse, and nobody's going to bring more euros into Greece. The economy will collapse. Without the government being able to print its own money, the Greek economy would literally become a barter-based one. Trade your car radio for a loaf of bread. *That* is why they couldn't continue to use the Euro.

Analogy: Suppose a race of aliens lands from somewhere, sets up a colony on a giant raft in the North Sea (or several colonies on rafts/floating islands), and says "We'd like to join this Eurozone. They have a good standard currency and trading system -- let's apply for membership."

What would prevent them from joining?

For starters, the fact that the North Sea is divided into Exclusive Economic Zones between the countries that border it, and no entity; human or alien; is legally allowed to set up their own country in it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nope. The exact opposite is the case.

You picked an article from April. Since then, the Euro has clearly rebounded, and shows no sign of going back to April levels. There is a clear upward trend. But nice try.

Something has to be wrong in this scenario somewhere.

Why can't a country just say: "We're broke, we default! sorry" but go on from there. Of course this means no more loans/bailouts.

But then pick up the pieces, with hardship etc., bad times, but slowly start doing the "right thing" instead of all the wrong things they've been doing, and slowly recover?

And why couldn't they continue using the Euro, as the most stable currency, even though they defaulted?

Did you not read a word of what I said? No more loans/bailouts means the Greeks will withdraw their money en-masse; the banks will collapse, and nobody's going to bring more euros into Greece. The economy will collapse. Without the government being able to print its own money, the Greek economy would literally become a barter-based one. Trade your car radio for a loaf of bread. *That* is why they couldn't continue to use the Euro.

Analogy: Suppose a race of aliens lands from somewhere, sets up a colony on a giant raft in the North Sea (or several colonies on rafts/floating islands), and says "We'd like to join this Eurozone. They have a good standard currency and trading system -- let's apply for membership."

What would prevent them from joining?

For starters, the fact that the North Sea is divided into Exclusive Economic Zones between the countries that border it, and no entity; human or alien; is legally allowed to set up their own country in it.

I would suggest you show the graph stretching back to 2011 or before. It bounced after hitting an all time low. It's hardly a bounce back but more likely bouncing off the bottom. I'm not complaining, I can buy more in Europe when I convert AED to Euros.

 

[dystopian]

I would suggest you show the graph stretching back to 2011 or before. It bounced after hitting an all time low. It's hardly a bounce back but more likely bouncing off the bottom. I'm not complaining, I can buy more in Europe when I convert AED to Euros.

You were the one claiming the Euro is continuing to dive. It's not. Fact is there is now a clear upward recovery trend. It doesn't particularly prove anything that it hasn't recovered to pre-2014 levels yet. The picture you're trying to paint of the Euro in a "downward spiral" (your words, not mine) is a fantasy designed to fuel your personal ideology. Besides, the average value of the Euro before 2014 was 1.35 dollars, versus around 1.08 dollars at its very lowest. That's hardly a 'collapse' or a 'downward spiral'; it's a perfectly sustainable currency fluctuation and nothing to worry over mid to long term.

 

[Togo]

If you have Greek staying in it raises a number of questions. Are they bound by the financial stability provisions that apply to non-Euro EU members? If not, do they benefit from trade provisions predicated on a trade area where those conditions are met? How hard do other members have to try to stay within the EU rules if Greece can break the rules without leaving? How long do members joining the EU have to keep to the entry criteria before they can 'let go' and go back to their old ways?

Valid questions; though ones that do not necessarily translate into significant EU-wide problems. Temporary exceptions to the rules in order to deal with exceptional circumstances, such as in the case of Greece, could in fact strengthen overall confidence among countries. It'd demonstrate a certain solidarity and promise of support even during dire times; without promoting fiscal negligence in other countries as nobody would want to become like Greece.

Kinda misses the point though. What financial markets care about is what rules get applied. Does the EU provide some kind of guarantee for debts of its member states, or not? Does the EU actually enforce economic standards or not? Does being in the EU make you a better credit risk, and to what extent? The inability of Greece and the EU to come to a workable deal doesn't reflect well on either party, because even now, several years on, it's not clear what's going to happen, or what rules will be applied.

I think some kind of special measures would be a good solution. However, Greece has rejected the special measures the EU have tried to enforce, for what seem to me to be fairly solid reasons. The EU hasn't really done enough to hammer out a workable solution - they don't trust the Greeks to solve the problem, and haven't solved the problem themselves.

In this case, sure. In the case of the UK leaving, there is of course only one possible scenario, and every other possibility is wrong.

I've never said or implied anything of the sort. Indeed, I've acknowledged a wide range of possible scenarios regarding a UK exit.

!!! I think we'll just agree to disagree there.

It is, however, beyond question that the consequences would *not* be positive. Just like the consequence of a Greek exit would not be positive.

If you assume that being in the EU is inherently better than not being the in EU, then yes, the consequence would not be positive, provided you look far enough in the future.
If you assume the opposite, that being outside the EU is inherently better than being inside, then, no, the consequence would be positive, provided you look far enough in the future.

What one can't do is assume that because EU=good, then it somehow doesn't matter what the rules are, or on what basis the EU is run. Because those questions challenge the basis of whether membership is actually good in the first place.

So while we're broadly in agreement that EU membership is good, that doesn't mean that these questions aren't significant, or are particular to Greece. Quite the opposite.

I have really only taken aim at those who would merrily pretend the UK could leave without any consequences whatsoever; all rainbow and sunshine.

Incorrect. You went gunning after Cameron in no uncertain terms, refusing to accept that the referendum might have been offered for purely UK-based reasons. More generally you've been opposing the idea that the EU could be anything but beneficial, and have consistently cast the reforms the UK are asking for as a spoilt child wanting special treatment.

You may have been aiming for those who think the UK exit is without consequence, but your fire has been pretty indiscriminate.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would suggest you show the graph stretching back to 2011 or before. It bounced after hitting an all time low. It's hardly a bounce back but more likely bouncing off the bottom. I'm not complaining, I can buy more in Europe when I convert AED to Euros.

You were the one claiming the Euro is continuing to dive. It's not. Fact is there is now a clear upward recovery trend. It doesn't particularly prove anything that it hasn't recovered to pre-2014 levels yet. The picture you're trying to paint of the Euro in a "downward spiral" (your words, not mine) is a fantasy designed to fuel your personal ideology. Besides, the average value of the Euro before 2014 was 1.35 dollars, versus around 1.08 dollars at its very lowest. That's hardly a 'collapse' or a 'downward spiral'; it's a perfectly sustainable currency fluctuation and nothing to worry over mid to long term.

its been a downward trend for several years with rises and drops, but overall it has been downward. Downward spiral is not the correct description. The Euro has stayed afloat but like a vessel slowly taking in water with some of the Eu baling it out. 1.35 against 1.08 per unit is not a lot. However the market is about millions to billions. So assets of 1.35 billion declining to 1.08 billion is a lot of money.

 

[bilby]

You were the one claiming the Euro is continuing to dive. It's not. Fact is there is now a clear upward recovery trend. It doesn't particularly prove anything that it hasn't recovered to pre-2014 levels yet. The picture you're trying to paint of the Euro in a "downward spiral" (your words, not mine) is a fantasy designed to fuel your personal ideology. Besides, the average value of the Euro before 2014 was 1.35 dollars, versus around 1.08 dollars at its very lowest. That's hardly a 'collapse' or a 'downward spiral'; it's a perfectly sustainable currency fluctuation and nothing to worry over mid to long term.

its been a downward trend for several years with rises and drops, but overall it has been downward. Downward spiral is not the correct description. The Euro has stayed afloat but like a vessel slowly taking in water with some of the Eu baling it out. 1.35 against 1.08 per unit is not a lot. However the market is about millions to billions. So assets of 1.35 billion declining to 1.08 billion is a lot of money.

The euro was worth USD 0.8252 at its lowest point (in 2000). It was below USD 1.08 for about five years, starting in 1999. It has a long way to fall, if it is to repeat that (non-fatal) low. But it isn't falling; the EUR/USD rate has been improving steadily since March, and is currently at about USD 1.13 - close to its initial rate of USD 1.17.

So overall, the euro and the greenback have performed similarly - since its inception, the EUR has been as much as 15% up, and as much as 40% down compared to its starting point against the USD; It is currently down 3.5% against that benchmark (and trending upwards), which is hardly indicative of a collapse, and is certainly inconsistent with a 'downward spiral'.

Here is the EUR/USD rate since 1990:

There is a clear drop in the last year or so, but it looks more like a correction back to the historical rate than an indication of any kind of disastrous decline.

 

[dystopian]

!!! I think we'll just agree to disagree there.

No, I won't agree to disagree on something as fundamentally obvious as the fact I've acknowledged multiple different scenarios.

It is, however, beyond question that the consequences would *not* be positive. Just like the consequence of a Greek exit would not be positive.

If you assume that being in the EU is inherently better than not being the in EU, then yes, the consequence would not be positive, provided you look far enough in the future.
If you assume the opposite, that being outside the EU is inherently better than being inside, then, no, the consequence would be positive, provided you look far enough in the future.

There are no objective projections of leaving that present a net positive scenario. There's only degrees in the damages incurred.

Beyond that, it should be exceedingly obvious that it is better to be in the biggest free trade bloc in the world and have influence over it than to be outside of it and have no influence.

What one can't do is assume that because EU=good, then it somehow doesn't matter what the rules are, or on what basis the EU is run. Because those questions challenge the basis of whether membership is actually good in the first place.

I have never argued otherwise.

So while we're broadly in agreement that EU membership is good, that doesn't mean that these questions aren't significant, or are particular to Greece. Quite the opposite.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.

Incorrect. You went gunning after Cameron in no uncertain terms, refusing to accept that the referendum might have been offered for purely UK-based reasons.

I wasn't aware we were including people who aren't participants in this forum.

More generally you've been opposing the idea that the EU could be anything but beneficial,

I have simply argued that it is a *net* benefit. That does not imply it doesn't have downsides. Please do not twist my position into something that it isn't.

and have consistently cast the reforms the UK are asking for as a spoilt child wanting special treatment.

Various reforms in general? No. The demands for UK *exemptions/exceptions*, yes; which is hardly a perception I am alone in having.

You may have been aiming for those who think the UK exit is without consequence, but your fire has been pretty indiscriminate.

I have poor aim.

 

[Togo]

its been a downward trend for several years with rises and drops, but overall it has been downward.

No, it hasn't. It had a big fall a while back, and has been steadily strengthening ever since.

Just do a search for the exchange rate, against whatever major currency takes your fancy, for whatever time period takes your fancy, and have a look for yourself. Currency strength is a matter of public record.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nope. The exact opposite is the case.

You picked an article from April. Since then, the Euro has clearly rebounded, and shows no sign of going back to April levels. There is a clear upward trend. But nice try.

Something has to be wrong in this scenario somewhere.

Why can't a country just say: "We're broke, we default! sorry" but go on from there. Of course this means no more loans/bailouts.

But then pick up the pieces, with hardship etc., bad times, but slowly start doing the "right thing" instead of all the wrong things they've been doing, and slowly recover?

And why couldn't they continue using the Euro, as the most stable currency, even though they defaulted?

Did you not read a word of what I said? No more loans/bailouts means the Greeks will withdraw their money en-masse; the banks will collapse, and nobody's going to bring more euros into Greece. The economy will collapse. Without the government being able to print its own money, the Greek economy would literally become a barter-based one. Trade your car radio for a loaf of bread. *That* is why they couldn't continue to use the Euro.

Analogy: Suppose a race of aliens lands from somewhere, sets up a colony on a giant raft in the North Sea (or several colonies on rafts/floating islands), and says "We'd like to join this Eurozone. They have a good standard currency and trading system -- let's apply for membership."

What would prevent them from joining?

For starters, the fact that the North Sea is divided into Exclusive Economic Zones between the countries that border it, and no entity; human or alien; is legally allowed to set up their own country in it.

I was looking at the trend since 2008 to give an idea how the Euro has floated long term. My graph was out of date but the intent is not to mislead but the long term trend is still there.
Like I said there's still a way to go to get to its old level. Aliens don't need to settle in the North Sea. Dry land awaits them in Europe as illegal immigrants.

 

[dystopian]

My graph was out of date but the intent is not to mislead but the long term trend is still there.

As others have pointed out, no it isn't. Pre-crash, the average trend had been upward, as demonstrated by what Bilby posted. And we're now in recovery.

Aliens don't need to settle in the North Sea. Dry land awaits them in Europe as illegal immigrants.

And somehow you've managed to randomly make it about immigrants again.

You're starting to sound like you might be a tad obsessed.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As others have pointed out, no it isn't. Pre-crash, the average trend had been upward, as demonstrated by what Bilby posted. And we're now in recovery.

Aliens don't need to settle in the North Sea. Dry land awaits them in Europe as illegal immigrants.

And somehow you've managed to randomly make it about immigrants again.

You're starting to sound like you might be a tad obsessed.

Illegal immigrants. Who in Europe is going to pay for them?

 

[bilby]

As others have pointed out, no it isn't. Pre-crash, the average trend had been upward, as demonstrated by what Bilby posted. And we're now in recovery.





And somehow you've managed to randomly make it about immigrants again.

You're starting to sound like you might be a tad obsessed.

Illegal immigrants. Who in Europe is going to pay for them?

Whoever employs them. As illegal immigrants, they can't access state benefits, so their only sources of income are paid work, and charity.

Most will opt for paid work, usually doing shit jobs that EU citizens don't want, for pay EU citizens wouldn't accept.

That's generally not a bad thing (which is why the analogous problem in the USA with Mexican illegal immigrants is never seriously addressed; if the US sent all the illegals home, then who would mow their yards, and scrub their toilets?).

 

[dystopian]

As others have pointed out, no it isn't. Pre-crash, the average trend had been upward, as demonstrated by what Bilby posted. And we're now in recovery.





And somehow you've managed to randomly make it about immigrants again.

You're starting to sound like you might be a tad obsessed.

Illegal immigrants. Who in Europe is going to pay for them?

So, you ignore the part where it's pointed out that your claims about the Euro's 'downward trend' are false...

...and instead respond to the accusation that you're obsessed with immigrants by...

...talking about immigrants again.

Yeah, you're not starting to sound any less obsessed you know. Only more so.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Illegal immigrants. Who in Europe is going to pay for them?

So, you ignore the part where it's pointed out that your claims about the Euro's 'downward trend' are false...

...and instead respond to the accusation that you're obsessed with immigrants by...

...talking about immigrants again.

Yeah, you're not starting to sound any less obsessed you know. Only more so.

The interesting thing about statistics is you can look at them honestly over any timespan
The current upturn shows something healthy but taking into account the long term trend it has been a long term decline. This doesn't mean you would be wrong in what you say because you are looking at the recent sharp rise.

Immigration is a key topic. It is not a racial issue. I can go through immigration policies I have seen in China, Hong Kong, India and the UAE. If Holland took in 2 million migrants from Africa and Syria, how would it support them with immediate housing, medical assistance and the cost of living. In HK where I worked for some years, it was illegal not to pay immigrants less than the local standards of salary. This is to protect the immigrants against exploitation and local jobs from unfair competition. They also had full representation rights through the Labour department where it was illegal to sack workers who had a dispute with the employer.

- - - Updated - - -

Illegal immigrants. Who in Europe is going to pay for them?

Whoever employs them. As illegal immigrants, they can't access state benefits, so their only sources of income are paid work, and charity.

Most will opt for paid work, usually doing shit jobs that EU citizens don't want, for pay EU citizens wouldn't accept.

That's generally not a bad thing (which is why the analogous problem in the USA with Mexican illegal immigrants is never seriously addressed; if the US sent all the illegals home, then who would mow their yards, and scrub their toilets?).

Before Immigration I scrubbed toilets. Before immigration the hotel beds got made and the lawns were mowed.

 

[arkirk]

Illegal immigrants. Who in Europe is going to pay for them?

Whoever employs them. As illegal immigrants, they can't access state benefits, so their only sources of income are paid work, and charity.

Most will opt for paid work, usually doing shit jobs that EU citizens don't want, for pay EU citizens wouldn't accept.

That's generally not a bad thing (which is why the analogous problem in the USA with Mexican illegal immigrants is never seriously addressed; if the US sent all the illegals home, then who would mow their yards, and scrub their toilets?).

You still are accepting the notion that great wealth disparities are acceptable. They are not.

 

[bilby]

Whoever employs them. As illegal immigrants, they can't access state benefits, so their only sources of income are paid work, and charity.

Most will opt for paid work, usually doing shit jobs that EU citizens don't want, for pay EU citizens wouldn't accept.

That's generally not a bad thing (which is why the analogous problem in the USA with Mexican illegal immigrants is never seriously addressed; if the US sent all the illegals home, then who would mow their yards, and scrub their toilets?).

You still are accepting the notion that great wealth disparities are acceptable. They are not.

Not at all. The wealth disparity between a wealthy European and a poor African is reduced when the African goes to Europe. If it wasn't, they wouldn't want to go, and there would be nothing to discuss.

Illegal immigration may not go as far as I would like to reducing that disparity, but it is better than nothing.

 

[Jayjay]

Illegal immigrants. Who in Europe is going to pay for them?

Whoever employs them. As illegal immigrants, they can't access state benefits, so their only sources of income are paid work, and charity.

Most will opt for paid work, usually doing shit jobs that EU citizens don't want, for pay EU citizens wouldn't accept.

That's generally not a bad thing (which is why the analogous problem in the USA with Mexican illegal immigrants is never seriously addressed; if the US sent all the illegals home, then who would mow their yards, and scrub their toilets?).

I think the situation is not as analogous as you think. The illegals in EU have less options than US, and the current influx isn't as much characterized by people willing to stay illegally but rather applying for asylum via legal means. While their applications are processed they are provided a roof over their heads and basic welfare.

 

[arkirk]

You still are accepting the notion that great wealth disparities are acceptable. They are not.

Not at all. The wealth disparity between a wealthy European and a poor African is reduced when the African goes to Europe. If it wasn't, they wouldn't want to go, and there would be nothing to discuss.

Illegal immigration may not go as far as I would like to reducing that disparity, but it is better than nothing.

The type of immigration you are speaking of is refuge immigration. That is because they are running from our actions in their native lands...making deals with their dictators and their task masters and not caring one bit about their welfare. Britain has a long history of empire and had such a huge one that it can expect immigration for centuries as a result of it's old holdings. They know when it it time to make a break for it, but they cannot escape the consequences of their international predation. Britain has gone from hegemon to second rate. It actually will make little difference whether they stay with the European Community or not.

 

[bilby]

Whoever employs them. As illegal immigrants, they can't access state benefits, so their only sources of income are paid work, and charity.

Most will opt for paid work, usually doing shit jobs that EU citizens don't want, for pay EU citizens wouldn't accept.

That's generally not a bad thing (which is why the analogous problem in the USA with Mexican illegal immigrants is never seriously addressed; if the US sent all the illegals home, then who would mow their yards, and scrub their toilets?).

I think the situation is not as analogous as you think. The illegals in EU have less options than US, and the current influx isn't as much characterized by people willing to stay illegally but rather applying for asylum via legal means. While their applications are processed they are provided a roof over their heads and basic welfare.

If they are refugees or asylum seekers, then they are not illegal immigrants at all; and giving them the basic necessities to live is both morally right and, in relation to EU government expenditure as a whole, easily affordable.

 

[Jayjay]

I think the situation is not as analogous as you think. The illegals in EU have less options than US, and the current influx isn't as much characterized by people willing to stay illegally but rather applying for asylum via legal means. While their applications are processed they are provided a roof over their heads and basic welfare.

If they are refugees or asylum seekers, then they are not illegal immigrants at all; and giving them the basic necessities to live is both morally right and, in relation to EU government expenditure as a whole, easily affordable.

I don't think that being an asylum seeker is mutually exclusive with being an illegal immigrant: an asylum seeker can still come to the country illegally. And my understanding is that a vast majority of those coming to EU right now are in this category. I'm not saying they shouldn't be treated humanely, but this does seem to make the situation in Europe different from US.

I presume that in the US, people coming from Mexico illegally are deported as soon as they are caught.