text:
The blog has offered the great knowledge I really enjoyed a lot by reading this.
power precision
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
The blog has offered the great knowledge I really enjoyed a lot by reading this.
power precision
People have been asking 20, 30, 40 years on, why the heck did people vote to be in this nightmare. The eu is set to shrink by a huge margin over the next 50 years. Who wants to be part of an empire anyway!?
The financial woes of Cyprus seems to indicate a continuing state of malaise for the Euro, following similar problems in Greece, Spain, Ireland and elsewhere in the Eurozone.
It might seem a strange assertion to some, but these events show that the Euro project is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. The Eurozone as a whole is supporting member countries in financial difficulties, and will continue to do so until the situation improves. Of course, the situation is extreme – much more so than was envisaged when the Euro was set up, but in one way this is a good thing: because of the severe nature of the problems, rules and safeguards are being strengthened to ensure that similar crises are much less likely to happen.
We need to remember that it is not membership of the Euro that has caused the financial problems in these countries – the world-wide financial crisis is indeed world-wide, and has affected nations everywhere, regardless of whether they are Eurozone members or not. The difference about the Eurozone is that there is mutual support. This does not mean that the solutions are easy – far from it – but at least there is a huge willingness to help. Remember 'Black Wednesday' in 1992? UK Prime Minister John Major, in anticipation of yet another Sterling crisis, thought he had obtained informal agreement from the German Chancellor that Germany would support the Pound if it came to the crunch. In the event, there was no support whatever. The Euro did not exist then, and the Exchange Rate Mechanism to which the UK belonged was not the same sort of arrangement at all.
Part of the reason that some Eurozone member nations were so ill-equipped to withstand the world financial crisis is that they just did not obey the Eurozone rules. This is a lesson that has had to be learned the hard way; but the result in due course will be a stronger Euro and more stablity in the Eurozone. The UK will count the cost in the future of staying outside the Eurozone. The European Union is its biggest market, and what the UK simply does not have is the sort of stability that Eurozone members have in their mutual trade. It seems good when the Pound is strong and UK prices seem relatively cheaper on the Continent – but it doesn't last; and the UK relies heavily on imports, so prices go up and up. Every trans-border financial transaction attracts fees, commissions and mark-ups, whether it is for businesses or for individuals travelling around or buying from Eurozone countries. This is a huge financial drain that the UK could do without. The UK does not have the stability in these matters that the Eurozone enjoys.
One of the self-created problems of the UK is that it's economic management is not forward-looking – it is just about the present and the immediate future. What about ten years time? Twenty years? Fifty years?
It is easy to look at current events in the Eurozone and to write off the Euro as a disaster, as the media would have you believe; but that is typical short-term-ism. In fact, in ten. twenty and fifty years time people will look back at the second decade of this century and realise how much Europe owes to those who persevered with this noble, far-seeing and eminently sensible project. One can only hope that the UK will by then have realised that outside the Eurozone it will continue to decline, to the cost of its citizens, its businesses, its place in the World and its reputation.
We simply DO NOT NEED the EU and the sooner we leave the better.
Family camping is FREE of charge in Hong Kong and this helps people stay FIT and healthy. STOP the EVIL EU car dependency and dictatorship supporting EVIL REGIME IN BRUSSELS. Move to China and be OK and have a GREAT family holiday. Stop Risk in your life too! FORGET EUROPE. The UK is OK with Russia and China.
@ Sanmartinian:
ME: "Doesn't it strike you as awkward that stil today, Greece and Portugal receive 4-5 x as much in EU subsidies per capita as Romania and Bulgaria?"
SANMARTINIAN: "I couldn't make head or tail of your 8 times Romania to Portugal or 5 times Bulgaria and what not. You maths notation is a bit confusing."
What is confusing about my above statement?
I was referring to the numbers you provided. Allow me to quote:
"[Net receipts of EU subsidies per capita:]
Romania …..........72€"
Source: SANMARTINIAN at economist.com/comment/1845580#comment-1845580
As I said earlier: I fail to see how this is fair, about 30 years after Greece and Portugal entered, and I blame that LESS on the countries receiving those funds and MORE on the EU for designing such policies.
The efforts should be focused on the newest entrants from Central and Eastern Europe, not on some long-standing members who need a second and third chances.
to Josh
I know I'm making a huge mistake but I can't force myself to go away without saying Good Bye.
If anyone addresses me I'll keep on replying, time and patience allowing.
When has civility become a bad word?
Anyhow - you'll be back. This stuff is addictive. I tried to kick the habit myself, but it didn't quite work out the way I hoped it would. (To say the least.)
to Joshua Tree on a point I forgot to mention and would like other people to read if they still have the patience for it.
Joshua Tree wrote " I'm for the EU, but for one that works"
Everybody is.
But we have all to be realistic. No political body has ever worked properly. Even remotely.
Thousand books will document that.
If in doubt, read my favourites: Gibbon for Rome. Gore Vidal for the USA from late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds. Robert Graves from Augustus to Claudius. Ann Wroe for a major power, a rising one, and another that never got anywhere in the 15th century. As the book is not for the large audiences, even cultivated ones, you may never have heard of it: it's called "Perkin, a Story of Deception", should you wish to have a try.
It is the masses that the political bodies believe they govern that achieve perennial deeds.
The same will apply to the EU. Read Toynbee. It helps to understand. Or else the EU will wither and die, but the the last few years look hopeful for its survival and historical imprint. Again according to Toynbee.
@ Sanmartinian:
"As for time [Greece and Portugal were] receiving benefits from the EU, I'll deal with that tomorrow if I still have the stamina for it."
Well, since you've stamina enough to provide me with a reading list on unrelated topics, I take it you simply don't know what to say in defense of Portugal and Greece still receiving among the hightest per-capita subsidies after about 30 yrs of EU membership (while you point fingers at the only two new entrants from the ex-commie world who receive more).
Point taken: You don't know what to say in defense of that fact.
And there admittably is no other explanation than that the current system of EU subsidies failed when the largest recipients in EU history - Greece and Portugal - have also produced the worst eonomic results and defaulted on their debt on top of it.
As I said earlier, EU subsidies should be limited in time. Now's the time to give Central and Eastern Europeans an extra boost so they'll have a chance to catch up.
Greece and Portugal unfortunately blew theirs. Time for both countries to come up with a better business model than asking for more subsidies. It's not sustainable.
"As I said earlier, EU subsidies should be limited in time. Now's the time to give Central and Eastern Europeans an extra boost so they'll have a chance to catch up."
I can't speak for all the new EU members but principally the subsidies are not much useful instrument. They are selective, administratively difficult to manage and control therefore they are often misused (corruption, favouritism) and distort balance in the economic environment.
Instead, it should be the business sector that sets the same standards in new EU members as in old EU members, including equal remuneration for equal jobs. If people have higher income, the higher taxes they pay and thus the more money is available to all - individuals, municipalities and governments - for development of their respective properties, for more expansive but environmental-friendly measures, etc. because price levels are similar everywhere (as they are on a single market and priced "for EU"). This is particularly true for the Czech Republic that has privatized most of the economy to foreign investors (due to shortage of capital after the fall of communism) but their attitude blocks the country to reach the same level of development as in the West. Also some other countries (Romania, Bulgaria, etc) have troubles with spending subsidies - both because of corruption-attempts and necessity for co-funding from state budget that increases souvereign debt.
Also there should be full liberalization of EU market. The trouble is that bigger countries have edge over smaller countries (smaller markets are not less interesting because they provide less opportunities, more limited infrastructure, supply chains, etc.), similarly historically more reputable countries are more preferred by business than new EU members or "periphery".
Therefore EU should help with off-setting these handicaps - not necessarily financially. Also, individual members should think about solutions that could improve their situations.
Let's take Iceland, for instance: they originally thought they could make money on banking, when this failed, they took advantage of their environmental conditions and offered Iceland as a base for computing centres for global companies due to lower costs of cooling electronics, etc.
Similarly, Greece and Portugal are geographically disadvantaged because they are rather on the periphery of continental business routes (and thus not much attractive for corporate investors focused on EU market) but they can take advantage of their sunny weather, navy and business contacts with other continents, etc. And then, of course, there can be either advisory, coordinational or even financial support from the Brussels to execute these visions. But it must be thought of as an investment that returns (at least in higher taxes collected) not as just plain consumed subsidy.
to Joshua Tree on stamina
Stamina is not needed for childish arguments as the one I in which I replied to you suggesting books to read.
Stamina is needed for hard research, mainly to look for things long archived.
For an intellectually serious reply I'll need a couple of days if, I repeat, I have the stamina for it. Plus patience I'm beginning to be short of.
But since I have dealt with this matter in the past, almost three years ago, as a first effort here goes the reproduction of my post of Mar 28th 2010, 15:59 "The myth of the periphery" in which I had an approach to this subject not too different from yours but without your malice and a lot less shallow.
Please go to https://www.economist.com/user/2839322/comments?page=137.
Please be careful: this is my post history page. As it keeps being added to, the final number 137 may be wrong. Please go to that page but then go to higher page numbers if you don't find the post
PASTE & COPY of my post
To Forlana
Thanks again to devote time to my thoughts.
My eldest son, a reasonably well known University professor and researcher in his field of applied maths, would love to read your sentence of "statistic games". With his acid tongue he claims statisticians know no maths…
Well, even not knowing maths, any clear thinking individual would refuse to treat this matter on a non per capita basis. If one does, it is easy to conclude that Poland is economically a far more backward country than, say, Indonesia, which is clearly not the case.
Your addition of Poland to the net beneficiaries of the 1976-2008 EU budget, suffers from an intellectually not too honest artifice: Ireland joined the then EEC in 1976; Spain and Portugal in 1986. So your table covers 22 years of budget benefits for Spain/Portugal; 32 for Ireland. Hardly comparable.
Poland joined in 2003. So you are comparing 5 years of budget relief for Poland against 32 for Ireland. Too obvious a sophism for anyone not to dismiss it immediately as either a silly oversight or plain throwing dust into the eyes of absent minded readers.
In fact, adding Poland to this table shows a serious problem for Poland itself as I mentioned before.
According to the Danish Parliament data (the best summary of the EU official data easily accessible), the largest beneficiary by far of budget transfers until 2007 was Greece.
Since 2003, Poland became rapidly a close second.
To make the data comparable Poland benefited from 2004 to 2007: 11425 million € (little less than your figure; this one doesn't include 2008 yet).
In the same 4 years Greece benefit was: 18602.5 million€
So, Poland is now second but the trouble is that Polish benefits have been growing much faster than any others: in 2007 Polish benefits were already 95% of Greece.
This will soon come to the attention of both people in richer EU countries, who will resist this trend, and speculators aided by present rating agencies, who will try to make a fast buck of this whether Poland joins the Euro or not.
Poland, be careful.
As far as EU budget benefits influence GDP growth I know of no serious studies in the matter. It looks, at first sight, irrelevant. Maybe there is an influence. Why don't you study it seriously? It may be an interesting field of research.
Just a warning: nationalism, like any other emotion, mixes very poorly with factual research. Mainly on money matters. Money and emotions never mix.
Well, I'd love to keep up this pleasant debate going but my son is waiting for my contribution to a scientific paper and I shall have to leave this for another occasion.
If I remember well Forlana had asked me for some advice on the matter as she had got an opponent to what she thought but I can't be sure. She took all this very well and has praised me often. Whether on this occasion or others I can't remember and perusing her post history is a bit too much effort for this subject that is only relevant to you who wish to show you are right at all costs.
I'll try to dig out the Folketinget report one of these days.
I am all in favour of the countries East of Oder and SE of the Vltava to be aided by the EU as others further North and South have been. Despite the fact that I'm now against all transfers between national entities: donors will feel milked, recipients are discouraged to stand on their two feet.
I repeat, if I have the patience for this type of futile research I'll try to come back with stats accumulated per capita aid received by EU countries. The Folkinget report was the best thing ever produced but I'm afraid Danish MP's have lost the patience for this too. Just as me.
PS The Australian Federal Court made a point of hitting hard the rating agencies and they never had the opportunity to trouble Poland. Rating agencies are now busy selling each other off.
My previous post
I definitely need more rest.
One of these days I'll write "Economist The" as Romanians do. But that's right in their language, not in mine...
@ Tomas:
I agree.
Efficient markets are key in creating equal conditions across Europe - that's why the focus should be on guaranteeing access to markets (the four liberties: goods, services, capital, labor), both via regulation and via the intitial (!) funding of projects facilitating access in countries that are unable to come up with the funding themselves.
The problem with the current EU subsidies is that 40 % (agriculture/CAP) rather reinforce existing inequalities than help break up sclerotized markets; and the other main budget position, structural funds, usually translate into old-fashioned infrastructural projects politicians so love, because they are tangible ("Here's the bridge we built! Progress is on the march!") - which are of good use when helping less developed countries get physical access to the common market, but amount to a massive misallocation of funds once the infrstructure is in place. You can only built al these roads, tracks and airports once.
The infrastrcuture in e.g. East Germany (largely financed domestically) is in large parts at least as good as in most parts of West Germany. The economy is still not, and it won't improve wit more roads, tracks and airports. The same applies to Spain, Portugal and Greece. When you drive around Madrid or Lisbon these days, you wouldn't fathom these countries are in deep crisis, given all the plush infrastructure.
In terms of facilitating market access and generating wealth, it would be more important to focus on funding research and development and building trans-european networks (e.g. gas and oil pipelines, high-speed internet etc.), but this budget position doesn't even account for 10 %.
Bottom line: I'm only in part criticising countries like Greece and Portugal for not efficiently using EU funds, and object more to the way the EU budget fails to make the right choices.
@ Sanmartinian:
When you've found out why "31 resp. 27 x record subsidies" (Greece, Portugal) is less than "8 x record subsidies" (Hungary, Lithuania), let me know.
Doesn't it strike you as awkward that stil today, Greece and Portugal receive 4-5 x as much in EU subsidies per capita as Romania and Bulgaria?
The current system of EU subsidies isn't producing the desired results, and it is unfair.
"Greece and Portugal unfortunately blew theirs. Time for both countries to come up with a better business model than asking for more subsidies"
This wounded southern EZ machismo in having been unsuccessful in adopting a northern currency is having disturbing side-effects as certain states drift back to fascism.
Didn't this particular poster once tell us that he was born in 1931 yet managed somwhow to become an admiral in WW2:)
To Joshua Tree
who wrote
The current system of EU subsidies isn't producing the desired results, and it is unfair.
Fully agree with you and I repeat I think the whole thing ought to be scrapped. Obviously this is a dream that will not be fulfilled for centuries, if ever.
My opinion on subsidies of whatever nature in whatever place is that they always distort sound economy, promote a culture of dependence and encourage corruption.
CAP, about half of the EU's budget, is almost certainly the worst culprit.
So, on this, nothing more needs to be said.
On comparing Greece, Portugal, Romania and whoever else, I have the following comments of a non technical nature:
1- I now believe you are Josh_in_ Lux. I'm very formal in these matters and a moniker is one individual, end of story, no hanky panky with pen names. I even have difficulty in finding out some rather obvious moniker changes or impersonations.
2- If you are really Josh, you have long ago created a funny idea that somehow I was against the Romanias, Polands, Czech Reps. and so on having joined the EU. I've proved by quoting correspondence with Marny's, Ioans, Forlanas and so on, this was the opposite of my thinking.
3- As the majority of people who like to argue (it is obvious you are and you've admitted it yourself) you never understand that the minds of other people may not work in the same way as yours. So, you never believed that I, a member of club A, could admit Club B is right, has reasons for complaining or has had a bad deal.
4- Now, the point is that I never belong to any club, whatever its nature, and couldn't care less who's winning, losing, doing better or worse to the great amusement of my sons and grand children
5- This applies to nationalities and countries: I'm totally impartial to their position. I repeat I have a "D. Juan complex" about nationalities: I love any lovely face that comes along. I can't remember any country I dislike and my degree of liking better or not so much comes strictly from knowing them better or worse (or not at all; I think I know some 100 countries, there are another 100 I don't)
6- So, forget your theory about me or you'll never understand what I say. To be honest, I couldn't care less whether you do or not, but I do care a lot about the most probable truth and worry about problems that can arise from people not seeing realities ahead of them.
Hope this is clear.
If so, a last comment: granting subsidies is an "industry". And not a very honest one to boot. For years, I didn't pay much attention to the subsidy hanky-pankying in Europe.
Then, maybe three years ago, thanks mostly to a German undergraduate that has spent some time in my fishing village house, the recollection of past facts made me understand the "subsidy industry": I'd seen it in operation from Vancouver in Canada to Durban in South Africa, from Valparaiso in Chile to Uppsala in Sweden but somehow, I'd never paid any attention to it in most Western Europe.
Probably my naiveté to think crimes are committed only by gangsters, never by "gentlemen".
The "subsidy industry" is a highly technical, very sophisticated, rich country business.
Maybe that's why the Romanias and Bulgarias of this world are still not getting them.
Recipients who have enough expertise to handle sophisticated schemes are those chosen by talented agents in donor countries to get their (agents') share of the proceedings.
I don't think I'll be very popular after this, but as usual I care very little about popularity.
Once more let's stop here.
If I do find the time and patience to unearth or build a couple tables showing the donor/recipient ranking of EU countries I'll post it.
A final "sting": I couldn't make head or tail of your 8 times Romania to Portugal or 5 times Bulgaria and what not. You maths notation is a bit confusing.
It doesn't matter.
Portugal and Greece have received and are receiving a hell of a lot more than East of Oder countries and as long as that is where "donor's agents" get their money it will keep on being so.
Poland, though, looks the next El Dorado for "donor's agents". No wonder: Poles have always been great mathematicians and are not bad accountants. Nobody will accuse them of lack of sophistication.
to Josua Tree, an addendum to my post right above
Being too long as all my posts are, I did not include a quote from the BBC that may prevent silly comments and bring some light to innocent and romantic posters (yes, that's you I'm thinking about)
PARTIAL QUOTE from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061 BBC NEWS 12 Oct 2011
Who benefits most from the CAP?
Overall, farmers in the 15 older EU member states benefit much more from the CAP than the newer members.
Nationally France benefits most, with about 17% of CAP payments, followed by Spain (13%), then Germany (12%), Italy (10.6%) and the UK (7%)
Large agri-businesses and big landowners receive more from the CAP than Europe's small farmers who rely on traditional methods and local markets. About 80% of farm aid goes to about a quarter of EU farmers - those with the largest holdings.
Major beneficiaries include rich landowners such as the British royal family and European aristocrats with big inherited estates, according to farmsubsidy.org, a group campaigning for EU transparency.
END of PARTIAL QUOTE
Any questions?
If not, please redirect your anger from Greece to other places.
Portugal doesn't count. Her CAP per capita subsidies are lower than Ireland's, Austria's, Denmark's, Holland's, Sweden's (? not sure; very close they are)
Again, final "sting": as they say in bull fighting areas, stats is not a cow for amateurs. (In popular bullfight areas, mainly in Andalucia and Estremadura in Spain, at the end of small village bullfights, organizers would provide, instead of a dangerous bull, a rather meek cow for amateurs to try their "skills")
jaja so zere you are … portuggerz griex franziz lazy bumz all ...
'I peacefully read another very fine piece from Blighty'.
That could be end of story. Unfortunately I have browsed through the comments. And with great astonishment found my pen-name used in some quarrel of at least tertiary (un)importance. So nolens-volens and with reluctance:
Sanmartinian, I am afraid you are wrong and on several fronts -
I haven't asked you for advice, though I am sure there's at least a miriad of matters about which I could have asked you, since you are a well-read and well-travelled man and I am more-or-less half your age.
In the 'Myth of periphery' thread you have answered my comment devoted to the subject (EZ problems) - and included Poland in your reply, not a EZ member, comaparing her to Greece. So among many life-issues I could potentially seek your advice about I have identified the first about which I better not. Never ask Sanmartinian about the relevance of author's nationality and issues of his motherland to a given subject. Luckily in my field of expertise - which is psychology - such tricks are impossible.
The remaining part of disagreements is in the excerpts from my reply you didn't quote, the reply to your post you've copy&pasted:
>Sanmartinian, thanks for more of your long and elaborated comments in spite of being involved in co-writing your son's paper. However, the point made should defend itself without the credentials of it's author, so we say in Poland. You know, we have anarchy in our veins. :-)
I do hope that after the seniority period in the EU of some 20 years Poland will be ready to return what she received and help the less developed.
It is my deep conviction that with hard work ethics and keeping the books straight it is possible.
I didn't see the point in including Poland into this discussion on countries suffering economic mismanagement. I have stated that in my previous post and have put Poland into the table to demonstrate the absurdity, in a tongue-in-a- cheek manner.
The article pertains to current problems of a defined group of states. You should understand that Poland and other newcomers to the union do have good reasons to be careful and watchful, in order to avoid some of the mistakes and joining the growing group of 'sick men of Europe' http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9009032 .
And that's in our joint interest, not out of economic nationalism. However, thanks for the warning.
I have objected and regret the discussion was deviated by Poland and it's possible future problems. However if that happened let us see the numbers for the 5-year of 2004-2008, when Poland's in.
Net income in mil EUR
Greece-------- 22,198
Portugal------ 12,356
Poland-------- 13,574
Net income %GDP
Greece------- 2.20
Portugal----- 1.60
Net income per capita in EUR
The dynamics of your fav indicator, income per capita, EUR,
----------- Greece-------Poland
In EU/EC since:
Greece---- 1981
My data source is an excellent Czech non-gov and non-banking company, which never failed me. I can wholeheartedly recommend it as the source,
Cheers from Warszawa<
The data are now three-years old, nonetheless I hope my position on the matter and ways you now re-discuss/re-use with another commentator is now clear and refreshed in your memory.
to KarmaSquad
"who cares, Berlin will open its wallets to keep the euro afloat, otherwise bye bye Germany economy!"
jaja save €Z for freeloaderz only
To Forlana on advice
Thanks for having the time to refresh my memory.
May I remind you of what I wrote exactly?
If I remember well Forlana had asked me for some advice on the matter as she had got an opponent to what she thought but I can't be sure. She took all this very well and has praised me often. Whether on this occasion or others I can't remember and perusing her post history is a bit too much effort for this subject that is only relevant to you who wish to show you are right at all costs.
So my memory was wrong.
Apologies and thank you for putting it right.
You are right: The quarrel is of at least tertiary (un)importance.
They always tend to be with that poster. I normally stop them immediately but this silly argument had had unpleasant developments outside this thread and I have been measuring reactions.
They are all in now; so I may or may not produce a table of subsidies if I can find one.
The existing ones are mostly out of date and/or not accumulated, including those of your source. The best ones I know are produced by the Danish Parliament but for me they have two problems: to find out what we need, they need a sharp eyesight (never had and it's getting much worse) and reasonably working Danish. Mine is good enough to ask for the next Post Office and end up at the Tivoli Gardens.
Incidentally, up to date stats all seem to show the excellent progress Poland has been through. My not many but close Polish friends all seem to confirm this.
Good for you. Congrats.
Portugal "ready to return what she received and help the less developed.
It is my deep conviction that with hard work ethics and keeping the books straight it is possible."
Good one for the laughter. EZ designed for lazy bumz in chief. Franz poster just say ""who cares, Berlin will open its wallets to keep the euro afloat". Manana club. How nice to join.
@ Sanmartinian:
I fully subscribe to Forlana's objections.
I don't think you are "against Central and Eastern Europeans", although you once called eastern enlargement a "mistake" (when challenged, you explained you meant to say that both sides weren't ready at the time and that enlargement should have been postponed – with which I disagreed).
As Forlana, I simply object to your attempt to describe Portugal's net receipts as less significant than they are by saying that two (out of 10!) new members "from the east", Hungary and Lithuania, are receiving more per capita – but fail to mention that they've been members for 8 yrs only, and Portugal for 27.
These policies are ill-designed, and in their majority don't even encourage growth and development (read what Tomas Marny had to say on the issue). That was my point, nothing else.
No need to make a big fuzz about my monicker's "identity" when I made no effort whatsoever to hide who I am – quite to the contrary (ask Tomas Marny).
Also no need to put me on the couch. I could relay a few observations I have made about you (some pleasant, some less so), as well, but I'm refraining from doing so. I'm confident enough I can make my case without getting personal.
For the remainder of my reply, go to the top of the page (this thread has become too long).
@ Sanmartinian:
"Again, final 'sting': as they say in bull fighting areas, stats is not a cow for amateurs."
Sanmartinian, with all due respect, but do yourself a favor and spare me your trademark condescension when it comes to making sense of economic data.
I do that for a living and wouldn't pretend to have more expertise than you do in your professional field (engineering, accoding to you), either.
to Tomas Marny on the not great usefulness of subsidies.
I completely missed your post. Only today as Josh remitted me for the top of the page did I read it. Let me say I'm wholly with you, only a little harsher.
In case you missed one of my replies to Josh, on which I would congratulate you given the high level of nonsense this page has been filled with (mostly by me, I confess) let me copy and paste a bit of it:
...granting subsidies is an "industry". And not a very honest one to boot. For years, I didn't pay much attention to the subsidy hanky-pankying in Europe.
Then, maybe three years ago, thanks mostly to a German undergraduate that has spent some time in my fishing village house, the recollection of past facts made me understand the "subsidy industry": I'd seen it in operation from Vancouver in Canada to Durban in South Africa, from Valparaiso in Chile to Uppsala in Sweden but somehow, I'd never paid any attention to it in most Western Europe.
Probably (because of) my naiveté to think crimes are committed only by gangsters, never by "gentlemen".
The "subsidy industry" is a highly technical, very sophisticated, rich country business.
Maybe that's why the Romanias and Bulgarias of this world are still not getting them.
Recipients who have enough expertise to handle sophisticated schemes are those chosen by talented agents in donor countries to get their (agents') share of the proceedings.
I don't think I'll be very popular after this, but as usual I care very little about popularity.
END of PARTIAL QUOTE
In the same way that organized crime has taken over parts of the financial industry, mainly in NYC and the City, apparently the largest fraudulent schemes in the USA cover the Social Security.
In a far more modest way the same is happening now in the EU with ESF and CAP. Even so, I, who was never much involved in those matters, realize now I have seen a few of them.
I'm beginning to think Calvinists may be right: evil is always present...
Anyway I'm now strongly against structural subsidies (catastrophe ones are another kettle of fish) but I don't think politics and fraud will let them die gradually.
As you probably will remember, I was an enthusiast of the "variable geometry" approach to enlarging the EU so widely defended from the seventies to the 90's. Countries would gradually gain access to the institutions they were ready for.
Unfortunately, the other side won. If they had not, we would never have had three bail-outs and two near death experiences, no Icelands nor Hungaries , not even Luxembourgers complaining the compensation for hosting EU institutions is just that.
More important, this article would never have been written. Well, that would be a pity: Blighty is one of my favourite columnists here. But the British dilemma half in, half out, would never have arisen.
And that is the real issue: most Britons seem not be interested in the EU and that's their right even if I prefer the opposite.
But the real division is beginning to look as if it is not between Europhobe Britons and Europhile Continentals, on a very silly and very false generalization: but between British politicians who get votes from a majority of English Europhobes, and very powerful vested interest in getting subsidies from CAP.
I guess vested interests will win once more and Britain will stay in, grumbling all the time.
Well, I'm off for now. I still make a bit of money from joining economic expertise with engineering experience and as things go, we'll be needing any penny we can get.
To buy gold as merchants and the Gold Council keep on advising us to do. If the world turns much uglier they'll prove to be right...
. Nice chatting to you again.
PS I did not forget Iceland was never in the EU. But with variable geometry she and Norway might have been. And the Europe East of Oder, South East of Vltava (sorry for the not very precise geography) would not have suffered injustices and lack of opportunities they have suffered before EU really stood on its feet.
I was a frequent visitor to Czechoslovakia (as it was then) and Eastern Germany both much before and long after die Wende.
Sorry for the modern Teutonic word but we are all Europeans now and I'm sure you don't mind.
To KarmaSquag on bye bye German economy
That's one way of looking at it.
Hello Sanmartinian! I always read your posts with interests.
I agree with your point that it was not optimal approach that post-communist Europe is considered as a single pack and that "bing-bang" type of EU enlargement was adopted - which was a political decision and caused a sudden shock and changed balance of powers, economic opportunities and financial flows in EU.
On the other hand, it was not rushed - in fact Czechoslovakia signed so called Association Treaty with EEC in 1991 and applied for full EU membership in 1996 - process of which was not finished for 8 long years (of intensive and extensive - dozens of chapters - negotiation and legislative, etc. adoption processes) in 2004. And after that, there was additional 7 years of transition period that individual countries could have prevented liberalization in various areas (e.g. job markets in some old members or land tenure in some new members).
In fact, the economic and administrative/politic transition from communist to capitalist system was finished in 10 years after "die Wende" so 4 or 7 respectively years seemed as a sufficient reserve...
As for subsidies - they have the negative aspects that I mentioned - and the fact that mandatory co-funding increases souvereign debt (and thus the cost of debt service) of receipients can be viewed as most serious ones that is often forgotten. On the other hand, it would be desirable to have a way to balance handicap of various regions. So I guess that existing subsidies should be optimized (e.g. backbone infrastructure) and new forms to boost economy in regions that fall behind should be devised (not necessarily financial)...
And as for my lamentation about the fact that global corporations are unfair to CEE? If you like numbers, relate GDP and unemployment stats: Greece, Portugal and the Czech Rep. have roughly the same GDP PPP but unemployment rates differ significantly (26% resp. 15.8% resp. 7.3% which are figures from October 2012). These hard numbers show much the workforce in CEE is exploited if in southern Europe they achieve the GDP values with triple the number of idle people...
To Tomas Marny on GDP figures with higher unemployment
I think I can offer an unusual reasoning about this.
Whether it is right or wrong, it's too early to say but I think it's worth exploring.
You probably will remember my insistence that the world is repeating, mutatis mutandis the thirties. Let's forget for now the important parallels: the Great Depression/Recession, the big debt crisis (Kreditanstallt 1932, Iceland, Dubai, Greece, Ireland, Portugal now) the civil wars (Spain 1936, Libya, Syria and so on now).
Let's hope a major tragedy as WW2 is not repeated.
Among minor parallels there's a funny one: Portugal, Spain (probably Greece, but I don't know their economy well enough for this) were displaying a disastrous productivity for the last few years.
Low productivity (except in electro-mech industries in Portugal) has always been a serious problem in Portugal and Spain. In fact Spanish productivity has decreased in the last decade, even before the housing bust. In Portugal it kept growing but more slowly than a lazy snail.
What has happened with the financial crisis in Portugal and the housing bust in Spain is a productivity revolution.
GDP is falling some 1 to 2% in Spain, unemployment went up by about 10% in a very short time.
Subtracting or adding percentages is streng verboten in maths, but this means an increase in productivity of no less than 8%.
In Portugal figures are no less impressive: 2 years of negative GDP growth of 3%, a jump in unemployment of some 8% and almost complete wiping out of immigration.
Do take these figures with more than a grain of salt. Groningen University, the great sponsor of global productivity measures is under severe criticism from MOLP and DEA experts and at times of great transformations stats always lag events.
The point however is that a revolution in productivity is evident. The surge in exports (that includes Greece, Italy, Ireland and others) is indirect evidence of productivity growth and, in a peculiar way, the soft equivalent of currency reform.
Exactly the same thing happened in the thirties in two unlikely countries: Switzerland and Portugal. Both adapted exactly the same policies : currency reform (today's Swiss Franc was "born" when Switz. abandoned the Latin-? of all things!- Monetary Union in those days) and strong austerity.
Of all neutral countries (belligerents were obviously destroyed)only Switzerland, Portugal and Sweden were better off in, say,1949 than they were in 1929. Sweden has the easy explanation of iron and other raw materials to Germany in huge quantities (the Allies had their own sources).
Portugal and Switzerland haven't that explanation:it was austerity and the strong productivity impulse caused in those days by a monetary reform.
Maybe that's what you are seeing these days in Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy maybe Greece.
Let's wait a bit longer to be sure.
Incidentally, it appears the opposite is happening now in Britain: unemployment going marginally lower with stagnant or slowly decreasing GDP. Global productivity down with decreasing trade balance. Another worry. Let's hope this is short lived.
to Tomas Marny on CAP transparency
I apologize to use your post as a way to host a comment of mine, but I have exhausted my allowed limit of three and I'm sure you won't mind if I make public what goes below.
During my research to find stats for this thread I was intrigued by a link http://farmsubsidy.org/.
It's an activist organization (very moderate and apolitical as I like them) that tries to make CAP subsidies accountable and transparent.
My suggestion is everybody interested in EU stats and mainly those who wish a fair and just world should have a good look at it.
Just a small sample to whet everybody's appetite. I hope I'm not infringing any copyright...
The European Union spends around €55 billion a year on farm subsidies. This website (http://farmsubsidy.org/) helps people find out who gets what, and why
New privacy rules keep 92% of Common Agricultural Policy beneficiaries secret. Not very encouraging but self explanatory.
With the risk of being called Anglophobe once more, this may well explain the hidden tug of war in Britain between public Europhobes and very much underground, but very powerful, Euro-beneficiaries.
I may be wrong but this conflict will be determinant to whether Britain stays in the EU or not. My guess is Euro-beneficiaries will win and Britain will stay in.
Another sample: the list of transparent countries about CAP benefits
Most transparent: Sweden, Denmark, UK, Lithuania, Czech Rep, Estonia, Belgium, Malta, Romania, Hungary. Kudos to them.
Medium transparent: Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovenia, Poland, Austria, Finland, Spain, Slovakia, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Luxembourg. Must do better for all; shame on the last few, mainly Lux., Portugal and Holland.
Not transparent: Greece.
I suggest all EU citizens give a hand to farmsubsidy.org.
If the EU economy is so great and the Brit economy is so bad why is Dansish unemployement still rising and the uks falling?
And the UK unemployment is falling with a mass influx of polish, italian, french, Spanish, etc youth coming here for work.
You may have no faith in the UK economy but the smart youth in the EU are flooding here in droves for a living because the EU has decimated their chance of every finding meanful employment in their own countries.
No wonder the rest of the EU want Britain to stay in.
We are implementing lots of tough reforms in Denmark, those includes but is not limited to:
1) Phasing out early retirement scemes
2) Making it more difficult to obtain disability benefits
3) Increasing retirement age and making future automatic increases in retirement age when living age increase
4) Getting young people faster through their university studies
5) Expanding the size of the labour force by making it less advantageously to obtain social transfer
6) Reducing the size of the public sector
7) Improving the competitiveness of private sector companies
Well, growth is expected this year and one can see that lots of private sector companies have started to hire. The important point is, that it is job openings with high requirements for knowledge and experience, that is, focus is currently on reforms to improve the skillset of the labour force.
Well, BBC has been running some acticle series were they point out, that something strange is going on with the british employment numbers because economic output has not increased in the way one would expect with the reported jobs there has been created. Part of the current guess is, that, the increase in jobs is due to a lot of people without a job there defines themselves as selfemployed but are unable to sell the amount of hours that they want to sell.
This one is from december 2012
Quote from the summary:
GDP is expected to fall by 0.4 per cent this year (2012) and to grow by 1.2 per cent in 2013 and 1.6 per cent in 2014.
Progress in 2013 is mainly driven by economic policy, which is estimated to increase GDP by 0.8 per cent (measured by the multi-annual effects). In 2014, progress is expected to become more self-sustained as growth and confidence returns in the European economy thereby pulling up Danish exports.
In 2013, private consumption is supported by an increase in households' real disposable income of just over 2 per cent, primarily due to the tax reform and lower interest payments. The consumption potential is also lifted by the repayment in 2012 of the Voluntary Early Pensions Contributions (VERP) of DKK 28.5 BN, which primarily seems to have increased households' bank deposits.
Business investments have been at an extraordinarily low level and at a lower level than current depreciations, and companies are expected to have a need for investments in new and more modern production equipment. The potential for growth in investments in 2013 is supported by the investment window and low interest rates.
Private-sector employment is expected to increase again from mid-2013, pulling total employment up. Overall, total employment is expected to increase by approx. 15,000 persons from mid-2013 to end-2014.
The labour market is expected to improve in the second half of 2013 and gross unemployment is estimated to fall from 168,000 persons at the end of 2012 to 152,000 persons at the end of 2013.
The public finance deficit is estimated to fall from approx. DKK 72 BN (close to 4 per cent of GDP) in 2012 to just over DKK 46 BN (2.5 per cent of GDP) in 2013. The fiscal policy for 2014 is decided upon when the Budget for 2014 is finalised. Based on technical assumptions the public finance deficit is estimated at approx. 2.75 per cent of GDP in 2014.
The structural fiscal balance is estimated to be close to zero in 2013. This is in compliance with the EU recommendation of an improvement of the structural balance by 1.5 per cent of GDP over the period 2010-2013.
The forecast is subject to considerable uncertainty due to the uncertain state of the world economy. The greatest risk is related to the possibility of an escalation of the sovereign debt crisis in the euro area and the negative interaction between weak public finances, weak banks and weak growth.
The UK is implementing similar reforms and yet our unemployment is down, business sentient is up.
You can state Danish figures all you want, yet we all know that continentals economies rely on Germany, and Germany is weakening fast, posting GDP at 0.7% for last year.
With the Danes main trading partners screwed, it is likely that unemployment will increase.
Germany is having a problem called "low unemployment"
That is good for Denmark since it means
1) Their relative wages are increasing compared to danish wages. We have won some price competiveness during the last 2 years
2) Increase the chance that German companies will invest in Denmark. Wages are still higher in Denmark compared to Germany, but
a) Labour market flexibility is a lot better in Denmark compared to Germany
b) It is in the near vicinity of Germany and having a welleducated labour force having access to high quality infrastructure
Danish economy is actually very diversified and we had export growth in 2012
The total growth in value of good export was 4,1% (not inflation correction) during the first 10 months of 2012 despite having a fall in value of export to EU27 by 0,6% and a fall in good export to Germany of 1,4% but the value of good export to USA increased 19,8% and the value of Good export to BRIC-countries increased 7,8%
Newest projections for 2013 says expected growth in value of good export (not inflation correction) of 4.2%
Considering our inflation is in the order of 2% do it sound reasonable and one should remember that we also have a large export of services. A good part of the trade between Asia and USA is for instance carried upon ships owned by danish companies and a lot of naval construction activity in the north sea in both danish and british waters are performed by danish companies
Well, I forgot to mention
That swing voters in Denmark are very focused on getting through reforms of the danish legislation there improve company competiveness and that a major part of the population (59%) are saying
They want less taxes and regulatory burdens on companies even if it means a need to cut the size of the public sector to finance it.
The swing voter position is even more focused.
Politicians there fails to make cuts in unnecessary bureaucrazy and non value generating regulatory requirements can expect to be voted out of power.
to ralphmalph
who wrote
No wonder the rest of the EU want Britain to stay in.
Are you sure?
I certainly do, mostly for sentimental reasons, but most of my surviving friends from Sweden to Italy, from Poland to Portugal tend to look at me as if I were nuts when I say that. Some of those who know me from childhood go as far as saying that I've been a bit off my rocker ever since I was a boy.
It is probably also worth mentioning that the telegraph are running stories like this one:
were they warn about the danger for the sterling and the financial markets in Britain if the British Government create uncertainty about Britains EU membership
This HSBC article is also interesting;
The latest projections from the European Commission suggest that the UK's export performance in 2012 will be one of the worst in the EU. A likely 0.2 per cent gain compares dismally with projected increases of 3.9 per cent for Germany, 2.6 per cent for France, 2.1 per cent for Spain and 1.1 per cent for Italy. Even Greece does better, with an expected gain of 0.8 per cent. None of these figures is particularly impressive, but in a sea of mediocrity, the UK stands out for all the wrong reasons.
Interesting that I just checked the telegraph
Seems they are also running stories how it is necessary for Britain to reduce visa requirements for Chinese a lot more than currently planned if Britain is to avoid getting outcompeted by USA and the Schengen-area of EU in attracting chinese tourists and investments from Chinese companies
Sounds as if the current government of Britain is failing to implement necessary policies to make it attractive for investment in Britain in sectors there can generate an income of foreign currency for Britain.
There is also the issue
Since the UK government seem to insist damaging Britains export abilities to non eu members in service sectors like higher education
do it create the question:
What do the British government plan for the future in order to make sure that Britain has manufacturing of goods and services there has an export potential?
In Denmark would we center-liberals most likely bring down the government and force a new parliamentary election if we were part of an government there behaved as irresponsible as Cameron is behaving as primeminister
Well, we are part of the current danish government and for the last 80 years has it been something like 70 years were we have decided if it was center-left or center-right there would have parliamentary power
Seems to me that Cameron is creating a situation were many companies and many skilled professions from the rest of Europe would be afraid of investing in Britain due to the political uncertainty he is creating regarding Britains EU membership and the many years it will take to resolve it
Seems to me, that Cameron is having a policy there threatens the survival of the longterm territorial integrity of Britain due to having a policy there would make it economically beneficial for Scotland to declare independence and apply for EU-membership and for the people of northern ireland to demand reunification with Ireland in order to keep the economical benefits of EU membership
Seems to me, as a danish center-liberal, that It is time the liberal party in UK do their duty to their country and bring down the government in order to generate new parliamentary elections.
Seems to me that the current british Government is a massive failure there have been unable to implement the necessary reforms to improve Britains finances, Britains competiveness and secure Britains longterm territorial integrity
United Kingdom: Main findings from the TiVA database
The UK-US bilateral trade relationship is stronger on value-added terms than in gross terms. There is more UK value-added exported to the US and the US is the main UK trade partner for value-added imports.
The UK bilateral trade deficit is smaller with France and China in value-added terms than in gross terms, as imports from both countries embody less of their own value-added as compared to other trade partners.
60% of the value of UK gross exports originate from services industries. This percentage is one of the highest among countries in the database, with significant services content in manufacturing exports.
55% of the value-added of EU gross exports originates in the service sector, with significant contributions made to manufacturing industries such as transport equipment, electrical equipment and food products.
The UK has the largest service sector that the EU would be cut off from if the UK were to leave the EU. The EU may be able to replicate some of the services, but would be lacking in experience that the UK has.
The UK does a similar amount of trade as Canada and Mexico do with the US:oecd.org/sti/industryandglobalisation/TiVA%20USA.pdf
Germany grew by only 0.7pc in 2012:www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9802081/German-economy-shrinks-0.5pc-as-euro-crisis-weighs.html
"According to the OECD, though, growth in the UK has been accelerating for six months. For the past three months, the CLI reading has been above 100 – indicating that growth is above its long-term trend of 0.5pc to 0.6pc a quarter. For November, the CLI rose from 100.5 to 100.7 – its strongest level since June 2011. Only the US was better, with a reading of 101.
Britain's improvement over the past year has been the strongest of all Group of Seven nations, with a rise of 1.5pc outpacing the US's 0.87pc. The monthly growth rate has also been robust at around 0.2pc for the past five months.
However, the eurozone is growing at below trend rate, with the CLIs at 99.5."
"Industry minister Arnaud Montebourg said last week that multilateral trade deals are "dead".
Portugal's central bank expects contraction of 1.9pc this year. The Netherlands said Dutch GDP will fall 0.5pc. Germany slashed its forecast from 1pc to 0.4pc.
Julian Callow from Barclays said the trade-weighted euro has risen 6pc since the third quarter of 2012. If sustained, this will lop around 0.4pc off eurozone GDP this year at a time when the economy is already contracting. The jobless rate has reached a record 11.8pc, rising to 26.6pc in Spain."
Does not look good for the continent.
A number of those persons working in the UK service sector will be skilled professionals from other EU countries. Kind of logical, that if you want to sell services to other countries do you need people with the necessary language, culture and society knowledge combined with technical, economical or juridical educations. That is, those EU migrants whose residence permits, working permits and social rights are in doubt and could stay in doubt for years if Britain create a many year long situation with uncertainty about Britains EU membership.
Additionally, a number of services can be expected to have a need to be performed from within the EU or countries entering trade agreements with the EU for services (there is aims for such a treaty between USA and EU)
Well, a few months ago did Stephanie flanders at BBC have an article were she compared the inflation adjusted growth of Britain with USA, the Eurozone and Japan (as far as i remember)
It was quite clear from those graphs that the Eurozone had massively outperformed Britain in real growth since the start of the Financial crisis and the eurozone had done that while bringing down structural deficits, improving current account positions (according to last weeks economist) a current account surplus of 0,9% in the eurozone and implementing lots of structural reforms and having less average debt than britain when measured as a percentage of GDP
I believe in the economy of the Eurozone
I do not believe in the economy of UK
I can see I should go to bed, part of my intended sentence was lost
Well, kind of logical, that it will have negative consequences for Britains ability to attract skilled migrants from other EU-countries and to keep those Britain already have if there is a situation were their rights are going to be in doubt for years. Kind of logical that will create a situation were Britains service sector will loose international competiveness
"Seems to me" that Denmark ought to join the euro instead of just shadowing it.
After all, it's a wonderful invention, so what's keeping you?
The single currency area is propped up by Germany, and Germany is weakening fast. Germany has produce 0.7%GDP in 2012, not much more than the UK going by the OECD, and its industry is struggling.
The majority of the UK's service sector is home grown, the majority of EU immigrants to the UK are low/unskilled low wage, their return would see a fall in UK inflation as housing pressures are eased.
The current account data is normal for a major import economy (OECD) and is smaller than countries that pride themselves on exports like France. Given that the majority of that deficit on the current account can be directly attributed to the continent, £55 bln, there is very little to lose when it comes to trade and the EU.
We have a good deal
We have a tight currency peg, there has been defended for many years by keeping fiscal policies more responsible than eurozone policies and having the nationalbank defend a tighter peg than the one agreed to with ECB. As far as i remember, are we actually having unlimited ECB guarantees for the outer peg borders agreed with ECB as a special reward from Germany due to the danes not creating massive problems for EU integration when we kind of renegotiated our deals with the rest of Europe after the danish no to the maastricth treaty
Danish government bonds are selling at interest rates much below German ones
We have secured access to the Target 2 Euro transaction system
We do not have voting rights for ECB interest rates but at the same time do we not have a need for contribute funds to bailouts of other EU-countries.
Basically, obtaining voting righs for interest rates does not seem worth the cost of having to make contributions to bailout programs
There are many differences in strategies used by Denmark and those used by Britain when you compare what Denmark did when we succesfully renegotiated deals with Europe and what Britain is trying to do:
1) We did not have a history of creating problems for EU. Britain have a history of creating problems
2) We attempted to avoid creating problems for Europe when the rest of Europe wanted additional integration and the danes had voted no to maastricht. Britain is trying to create lots of problems for Europe when the rest of Europe wants extra integration in order to minimize the risk of future bailout programs
3) We negotiated from a position of economic strength with an economy there was fiscally sound and with strong export performance. Britain negotiates from a position of economic weakness due to unhealthy fiscal positions and weak export performance
4) We tried to minimize the uncertainty to a few weeks. Britain is trying to expand the uncertainty to many years
5) Out politicians were able to send credible signals to the rest of Europe, that they hoped Denmark would one day join all parts of the union. British politicians are doing the opposite
6) We had credible alternatives (Nordic Union, possibility of EFTA-membership). Britain does not have credible alternatives
7) We had established lots of alliances and friends. Britain is having few allies in this issue due to point 1,2, 5 and the size of Britain since it would affect the rest of EU to much if you give special advantages to a big country.
I do not believe, that Britain will have success with it's renegotiation strategy.
@ Sanmartinian:
OK, seriously now and without any jabs:
1. I'm for the EU, but for one that works.
2. I'm not against "developmental aid" for poorer countries in the EU, but I'm against transfers. The difference: the former helps them develop and is temporary, the latter is permanent and only cements inefficient structures.
3. Inner-German transfers from West to East Germany will expire in 2019, 30 yrs after reunification. Justification given: you cannot permanently cover the differences in income with public transfers.
4. The same principle that applies within an EU member-state should be applied among them: a generation of net transfers is more than enough – and when after 32 yrs (Greece) or 27 yrs (Portugal) of EU membership, both countries not only fail to move above the threshold for EU subsidies, but default, it is safe to assume that in their current form, these subsidies are a huge disincentive.
5. That's why I find it a bit curious for you to point to Hungary, Lithuania saying that their net receipts per capita are among the highest – but fail to mention that after nearly 30 yrs of sponsoring, Portugal's still one of the biggest recipients EU subsidies. It should not be, it's the Central and Eastern European's turn now.
to Joshua Tree on developmental aid, not transfers.
Fully with you with two slight disagreements.
I'm a little more radical than you: even development aid can be part of the "transfer industry" with a very low rate of success and a very high rate of promoting fraud and corruption. Having witnessed it personally in places you wouldn't ever dream of, I'm sure of what I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, I neither can nor wish to prove it. So, if challenged, I'll have to retreat.
It's the old American prayer: may God give me the courage to fight for what I can change; may God give me the patience to suffer what I can't change; and may God give me me the wisdom to distinguish one from the other.
I often lack the last and fight for things I can't change. I've been lucky. So far, I've only suffered trespassed emails and occasional attacks that I have been able to turn back before I'm hurt.
As for Lithuania and Hungary, you are almost like Charlemagne: not very sharp to detect what goes on in other people's mind.
Feet on the ground engineers, particularly with a strong maths bent like me, have a fetish for numbers: if they are there and we find no reason to suspect their reasonableness, that's what we mention whether they prove or disprove what we prefer.
For those like us, numbers, money and maths are allergic to feelings.
May I say that people like you tend to think when we quote figures you don't like, you think we are being biased, think we have some hidden purpose or wish to prove a point.
The figures are data provided by the EU and wonderfully arranged by the Guardian. I'm sure they are as correct as they can humanly be. But if you wish, I'll spoil my sight a bit further and widen the list to the ten larger beneficiaries of EU largesse. I'm sure you'll find there the countries you believe I like to present in a better situation than they are.
And very welcome to all aid the Hungaries and Lithuanias of this world can obtain. I've written this to the not many Marnys, Ioans and Forlanas here who are kind enough to read me.
For my type of mind, presenting something better or worse than reliable numbers show is worse than drowning a dog.
Just a final word: being 81, and hellishly romantic about trying to avoid disasters I can see and some others fail to detect, I've been involved in some funny fights. Mainly because I only deal with applied maths, certainties most people don't even realize exist.
No to go back very far, I discussed the forthcoming CDO fiasco with excellent international journalists around 2000/1. One strongly believed me; the others didn't.
I underestimated the time until the bust: I thought we had ten years ahead of us: we had only six. I was also wrong about how it would develop: Australia first, then Britain, then Spain then America. As we know now Australia was practically immune and America's bust was long before Britain's, Ireland's or Spain's.
My methods need a lot of fine tuning.
But please watch Britain's foreign debt and Japan's domestic one. Holland is worrying too but not by a long chalk anything near Britain or Japan.
But then you'll say I'm here to denigrate Holland, one of my very favourite countries.
I may be wrong but that's there (UK and Japan) that the next trouble will come from. Long before America.
But I was wrong about the places of the housing bust and may be so again.
To finish a very boring post, as usual, let me issue a very peculiar warning.
Since it started existing, I've been an enthusiastic supporter of Wikipedia to which I've very occasionally contributed in both kinds the word is used.
It may not be over erudite but its convenience has always made up for far more than not very deep thought.
Recently I have had suspicions that its data is being tampered with.
It reminds me very much of the rumours and small evidence that preceded the LIBOR and N-o-W hacking scandals.
Hope again I'm very wrong.
And here do I find myself once more trying to fight a battle I have neither guns nor nuclear submarines for.
Organized financial crime is really far above the shooting angle of my Oerlikons. I always make the mistake of thinking it isn't.
I'm afraid it'll die with me like my sailing passion.
I was planning to write the third of my researched stats post here soon. In fact it is already written. I think I'll give it up now.
Blighty is too good a journalist to deserve another soporific post from me.
to Joshua Tree a small addition to my previous comment
Just back from watching world news (Al Jazheera, if you are interested)
For people such as me who have lived through the tragedies of the thirties and forties, it was obvious from the beginning of this millennium that a similar worldwide crisis was developing.
Although, as in the thirties, it has started in the financial world, it is definitely moving in the last couple of years into a far more serious territory.
All our little statistical concerns pale before what will come and is already upon us.
Let's keep things in proportion.
I'm afraid my continuous hope that I might be wrong, is vanishing.
To Joshua Tree on net per capita EU spending per country
(sorry Blighty: couldn't resist to another sleep inducing comment in your thread)
Since your last post to me asked why had I mentioned Lithuania and Poland, but not Portugal and Greece I've been torn between my chromosomatic idiosyncrasy of numeric exactitude and the effort for my eyesight to do the tiresome calcs for another 5 countries.
Then, Jove helped me!
The Guardian had it published. So I had done the calculations for two times five countries when they were all there...
A waste of photons going into my tired eyes.
Well, here is the reproduction of The Guardian's table that is calculated exactly the way I did mine but somehow some Guardian figures are slightly different from some other Guardian figures (different dates?)
As far as total budgeted transfers go, the net per capita beneficiaries are from worst to best behaved the following:
Poland …..........291€
Czech Rep.........150€
Ireland ….........110€
Romania …..........72€
As far as agricultural spending per capita goes (the first of my small list in the previous post), here goes the Guardian's copy and paste NOTE The country ranking follows spending per capita
EU agriculture spending by country
Click heading to sort table. Download this data
Total €m
per person
% of GDP
SOURCE: EU Budget Office
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Sure you want to keep insisting that Portugal and Greece have been the largest beneficiaries of EU largesse?
Figures and maths are totally allergic to pet dislikes (hates is too strong a word).
Also to strong preferences: Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, three of my favourite places on Earth, are at the very wrong end of at least one of either table.
What can we do? Stats and rankings are tools for management not a championship such as football or sailing scores (I like the latter when I still manage to join ; am totally ignorant of the former).
Maybe that made me having had a happy life without complexes and not bad management results.
But I am still strongly against "structural" or "national" transfers. Calamity transfers, I will accept. Specific action localized transfers, I may accept depending on circumstances
It is the net contributions per inhabitant and as % of GDP there matters. Not what you get as a country in individual programs
@ Sanmartinian:
Well, that was a hell of a reply.
Kudos for sheer perseverance, even though an estimated 90 % of the content of your three subsequent posts is unrelated to mine. But that's OK. Allow me to cherrypick 3 statements on which I'd like to comment:
# 1: "you are almost like Charlemagne: not very sharp to detect what goes on in other people's mind."
- You put that beautifully this time around. LOL
# 2: "Sure you want to keep insisting that Portugal and Greece have been the largest beneficiaries of EU largesse?"
- But absolutely! Anybody in his or her right mind would, I presume - no countries ever received higher per-capita contributions if the total length of EU membership is considered (and the obscenity of a special allocation for Luxembourg for housing some EU offices is ignored); Lithuania and Hungary have only been EU members for 8 years - Portugal for 27, and Greece for 31, mind you.
# 3: "My methods need a lot of fine tuning."
- Obviously. But I am confident you'll stay at it (you know, perseverance - see above).
to Joshua Tree on a point I forgot.
Please go to top. I want more visibility for that one.
As for time receiving benefits from the EU, I'll deal with that tomorrow if I still have the stamina for it.
to Gustav Uffe Nymand on net contributions being what matters.
Fully agree with you.
I only included agricultural contributions because Joshua Tree had mentioned Structural Funds, CAP is very connected to them, and represents almost 50% of the total EU budget. Besides getting figures for ERDF and ESF is very hard on my eyes and the Guardian wonderful graphic depiction of the EU budget is a lot easier but one cannot desegregate Structural Funds from CAP plus.
Besides I am a stats maniac.
In any cas,e I am against all transfers easily ascribed to nation-states: it helps increase the stereotyping so common in the world today and is one of the worse mental evils of the EU. It gives donors a sense they are being milked and recipients a counter-incentive to stand on their own two feet.
I repeat I fully accept calamity/disaster transfers without reservation. I will accept some local or regional transfers if they are advantageous for all or at least both donor and recipient. Even so, if my personal approval were ever needed, I would only give it on a well justified case by case study.
The "transfer" or "aid " industries are some of the most complex and successful machinery for corruption and bad management. This, particularly the corruption bit, applies equally to donors and recipients.
Most readers here are probably to young to remember the scandals of the "butter mountain" (60's 70's mostly in the low countries), the "milk lake" (a little later affecting several countries, yours included) and the "tomato swamp"(in the 70's/80's affecting mostly Italy, Portugal, France and, in a smaller scale, Spain).
"Transfer/aid industries" are the ideal vehicle for graft and illegal benefits camouflaged by law. You should have seen some operations of ESF programmes I saw in several north of Pirinees, east of Rhine European countries where I was board member of a couple of companies.
I'm told, although I have neither personal experience nor knowledge of it, that the "transfer" of polluting residues and money the other way round between northern European chemical giants and southern Italy is the engine of some of the worst criminal activities within the EU today. If you can, watch a film called GOMORRA. Although more fiction than reality, it paints a terrifying picture of the problem.
I am a chatterbox, so apologies for the long reply.
It seems that, when value is taken in consideration, the rest of the EU is NOT the UK's most valuable trading partner, so say the OECD and WTO:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/16/uk-us-europe-trade-relationship
The US is the most lucrative market for the UK, even UK exports to the EU are mostly destined of the US. It would cripple the EU if it erected trade barriers against the UK, as they would need the components for EU exports to the US.
I disagree
Import from Britain does not seem important for the value of continental Europes export
The following OECD-analysis gives
Foreign value-added in exports by country of origin for all OECD countries plus the BRIC-countries
This reflects the import content of exports i.e. the foreign value-added coming from imports that are embodied in exports - broken down by country of origin.
Basically, we are looking at supply chains for aerospace, automotives and for service sales like financial services but
that is the exact industries that british media like bbc expect:
Those companies will be forced to relocate to the continent if Britain leaves the EU and fails to secure deals like Norway were britain obtain market access but have to follow almost all directives and still have to pay money to the budget.
It was not a French businessman who spoke English, it was ECB-president JC Trichet. Who is French.
This should be one that The Economist covers, be on the lookout for the finance sector speaking up for a referendum, and possible departure from the EU.
It seems that now the EU has pulled out the big guns, the British government is set to have The City come out on its side.
Given that the finance sector is the biggest employer in the UK, and pulls in a trade 'surplus' of £40 bln, it is a bigger gun than anything the EU can call on.
The letter from leading figures in the City will be published on the eve of the speech, warning: "Pressure is growing from all sides for a referendum on our membership of the EU."
Though the BBC is 'europhile', this could be considered a good place to look for both sides:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20448450
It is clear that the EU is over bureaucratic, expensive, and barely in the interest of the UK to remain in if at all.
All thing being fair, the UK contribution is £65 bln+. This is despite the fact that most of the UK's trade being 'internal' rather than with the continent.
The internal market makes up 90% of all business. So with world wide trade making up 10% of business, and the most 'europhile' saying that UK exports 50% to the EU, that is a 5% share of UK business.
Is it worth being a member just to keep 5% happy? I don't think so.
Your net contribution to the budget is actually quite small
The following is from a EU information site run by the danish parliament
(country specific annual net contributions; english text)
(country specific annual net contributions; danish text, data for one more year)
Interesting enough, when i look at the timeperiod from the last 5 years there is data from can i see that the British net contribution to the budget is slightly lower than the italian net contribution and that the british net contribution is lower than the french net contribution to the budget.
Basically, it seems to me that Britain create to much trouble for Europe compared to the value of money they bring to the negotiation table.
Since Britain's EU participation is a subject that interests me very much, I'll use my three allowed posts.
One of the main points of contention for any country the belong or not to the EU or not is the "transfer society" issue.
To make my stand very clear, I am strongly against transfers from richer to poorer members. Or the other way round, that although not much noticed, exists as well and maybe not as small as imagined.
For a long period, say until a few years ago, I did not think much about the subject. Then when the silly Euro war started, I pondered a lot about it and my verdict is strong opposition.
My argument is mainly managerial and psychological: "structural" transfers from easily identifiable groups (countries, for instance) create a sense of "we are being milked" among donors and a culture of not having to stand on one's own two feet among recipients.
Thatcher's "I want my money back" is the typical example of the former; CAP is probably the most marked example of the latter. it covers almost half of EU's budget and its main per capita beneficiaries are: Ireland(383€); Greece; France; Hungary; Spain(148).
It is said the largest individual beneficiary is the British Royal House.
As total budgeted transfers go, the five net per capita largest beneficiaries are Luxembourg (3200€); Lithuania; Greece; Hungary & Belgium (280 apiece).
(a visit to excellent graphic sum up of European Union data provided by the Guardian at http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/01/26/EU27... would many people a lot of good and change a lot of distorted popular views.)
I also believe "structural transfer" are one of the most important sources of corruption in the world.
The "industry" of aid from developed countries to the "third world" as it was called a few decades ago, was and still is the best example of it.
The "Trade, not Aid" movement never caught on because of the vested interested in the "aid industry", one of the better organized self interest groups there are.
Having said all this, I recognize, societies without transfers are probably not viable: Bremen would fall apart if the rest of Germany didn't pay for many of its expenses, up to the sixties, London could not have its standard of living if it were not from earnings from the North (where's there's muck, there's brass, luv), the Depression in the USA would never have begun to be tackled were it not for the probably largest transfer scheme in history: the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Or former East German funds, the Marshall plan, Mezzogiorno and thousand others.
So, we do have to live with transfers whether we like them or not.
What we can and must avoid is the easy psychological identification of "donor" and "recipients" except in in easily justifiable cases: Katrina, Sandy, and/or Wessi/Ossi that, although fully justified, caused a lot of avoidable bad blood.
One of the many reasons I would like to keep on having Britain in the EU is that, despite its huge abuse of transfer society mechanisms from 1947 to even today, Britain has a culture of resistance to "inter-national transfers".
It would help the EU to change EU's culture of transfers between more and less productive easily identifiable groups, mostly nations, farmers and high finance that is being indecently supported by us all taxpayers.
I'm afraid a lot of of people in the City, Luxembourg, Zurich, Geneva, Lichtenstein and so on will be rather upset by this last comment but at my age being insulted is more a pleasure than annoyance.
It gives us as sense that we are still fighting for some ideal.
Back to Britain in the EU: I insist I 'd love her to keep on being in.
Many Britons, exemplified here above all by Cutters, would prefer to be out. Cutters has every right to fight for his choice and sins only when instead of reasoning he starts insulting others. But I'll put that down to the hotheadedness caused by breakdown of the British (and American) education systems.
I fully respect both options for Britain to stay in or out and humbly insist it is Britons', and Briton's alone decision, to make.
@ Sanmartininan:
Thumps up - finally something I can agree with wholeheartedly!
Is it a coincidence that the recipients of the highest-ever per-capita EU transfers of structural aid in Western Europe, GREECE and PORTUGAL,* were the first to default (in Greece's case: for real, in Portugal's case: de facto)?
I don't think so.
When EU funds allow you to build Europe's longest bridge across the Lisbon Bay, but you can only pay for the upkeep with more EU funds, something is wrong.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
*Luxembourg receives a special allocation covering the expenses related to housing several EU institutions and offices - without it, it'd be the # 1 a net contributor (on a per-capita basis).
To Joshua Tree on EU structural funds
Thank you for your attention to what I write; a detailed reply within twenty minutes is quite an achievement.
On topic: thank you also for your support to some of my views on the interest of the UK/EU connection whatever Britons decide to do about it.
If you visit https://www.gov.uk/applying-for-erdf-funding and similar links you'll find the large number of projects Britain has benefited just from the ERDF, one of the main pillars of EU Structural Funds: London, the NorthWest ('ow glahd Ah'm about it, luv!) Wales and Scotland.
A little off topic: ERDF benefits, as you've said, Portugal except the river Tagus Mouth region (what you mistakenly call Lisbon Bay), most of Greece, and also 9 regions in the UK, West Wallonie in Belgium, the Bremen and part of the Niedersachsen Laender, practically the whole of what was the DDR in Germany, the whole three Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Rep, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Mezzogiorno and Sicily in Italy, Burgenland in Austria and about half of Spain.
So, this is one type of transfer I might support. There is no way to identify recipients with nationalities and the national exceptions to its benefits are very limited: the three Nordics, Holland, Ireland, France and Luxembourg. Although they are more than compensated with other type of funds, this will avoid the usual ungentlemanly sniggering of a few posters obsessed with stereotyping Europeans according to the areas where they live.
Curiously, Ireland, the second bailed out country doesn't seem to benefit from ERDF funding, so, maybe the connection you drew is not as straight forward as you may think.
But judging from your comments you are far better informed of EU detail mechanisms than I ever will hope to be.
Another point not wholly disconnected from topic: your conclusion that Luxembourg would be the largest per capita donor if she didn't receive compensation for EU services and there installed is mathematically and statistically wrong.
If that compensation wouldn't exist, GNP would substantially decrease and Lux's contribution to EU would reduce too. The same effect applies to Belgium in a much smaller scale, given sizes. If your reasoning were correct and Greece did not receive structural funds she would be a much larger per capita donor than the UK, Germany, Holland, Italy or even Sweden.
I doubt poor taxpayers of those countries would appreciate the rather ungrateful thought. Maths do not take kindly to feelings; just hard algebraic facts.
Incidentally, this one of the main arguments of British or otherwise Eurosceptics against the EU. I, not a Eurosceptic, do accept they have a strong point here. The EU has to make its governance far more efficient and economical, mainly at the head like almost every country in the world.
I have no idea whether you are a Europhile or not but, if you so are, I commend your honesty in making so evident one of the points Eurosceptics feel so strongly about.
Go to the top of the page for my answer.
What will he come up with next? Wasn't his last one that Brussels had used Portugal as a guinea-pig to see how much debt it could accrue before the "EU" would step in?
Elsewhere he said he was born in 1931 but maintained that he was an admiral in WW2, and elsewhere some sort of army MP in Brussels, breaking bar room fights involving GIs.
Quite something for a 14 year old, eh?
Something uttered in tne beginning of this discussion is worth repeating: "She [Catherine Ashton] boasts a lifetime of political success without ever, ever having been voted into office. So she is a perfect fit with the political nonentities from insignificant States who dominate the Brussels scene, and - themselves unelected, pontificate from their opulent offices".
Well said, Thumersbacher! I'd like to add that the whole gigantic bunch of the EU unelected bureaucrats are the same kind of parasites - useless, arrogant and brazenly corrupt. That is what the EU is invented for: to serve as a life-long trough for irrelevant politicians of really more and more irrelevant continent.
More and more Europeans just want to keep their undeserved high pay, short work hours and long paid by someone else holidays in exotic places without much sweat... is it any wonder that their Brussels "elite" is what it is?
If Britain still has some common sense, she should leave that club of losers ASAP.
It is my impression that the rest of Europe is increasingly hoping that Britain will decide to make it's referendum
"Do Britain want to stay in the EU there is moving towards a democratic federation with liberal free market economy and constitutional mechanisms for ensuring responsible fiscal policies or do Britain want to leave the EU?"
The rest of Europe is getting very tired with the political instability created by Britain
Seems better to encourage the British government to make that referendum asap.
Historically has political uncertainty about future regulations for business and migration of skilled labour been bad for company investment decisions.
a) Democracy and federalism are oppositions, because democracy requires uniformity - something which federalism isn't.
b) If the responsible fiscal policies are mutual for 28 or more totally different in numerous regards countries, they won't work exactly because what is good for Germans cannot be good for Portuguese or Czechs, leave alone Turks. If them the responsible fiscal policies are perfectly tailored for every country's economic level, mentality, and culture - what do you need federation for?
to Reluctant Polluter
Hey, occasional antipode!
I'm now downside up to you. Would you mind shifting your right foot to the left? Its right below (or above) my left foot and hurting a boil caused by walking too much...
Sorry for this nonsensical, totally off topic message but at least it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings and leaves us both smiling, I hope!
Always nice to get a missive from you, Sanmartinian! Downside up to me? How true: I'm quite closer to the wrong pole than my usual place is, and I'll stay here in Toronto for another ten days or so - then slow movement back to south: NYC, LA, Fiji, Auckland. End of January I'll be an antipode again.
I doubt that a referendum question phrased in such an utterly illiterate manner would be desirable.
Well, it is a complicated sentence but it is the choice Britain is facing
Seems to me, that the rest of Europe is moving towards deeper political integration and better structures to ensure healthy fiscal policies in order to reduce the risk that taxpayer money in the future will have to be spend bailing out banks or memberstates
Basically, the rest of Europe is telling Britain.
Do you want to be part of this or do you want out. We can not accept continuation of the current situation since reforms are needed in order to reduce the risk for future bailouts.
The EU really is a rudderless hip at the moment. There are far too many "Presidents" at the helm, and most of them are Marxist, Maoists or Communists. It will eventually adopt a form of Euro-Socialism, which will possibly lead to a benign form of Euro-communism, with top Down policy making, a Centrist beuracracy, and an attempt to 'Control Everything' within its borders and remits with Secret Police, Gulags to 'Re-Educate' Dissidents, the 5 AM knock by the Euro-cops, and a general demand that "Everyone Conforms - else!!" the Gaulieters and Blockleiters will visit you.
There is a danger that those Centrists and Federalists in the EU will want to expand the number of EU States even more. The ancient Roman Empire has been suggested as a 'model'. In other words, those Arab and Islamic states around the Meditteranan Basin could very well become 'Member States'. The EU (aka EU-SSR Land) will eventually fail due to the tensions within its own borders just like the old russian Soviets and Warsw bloc states.
Of course all this will be strenuously denied by all and sundry in Brussels - but we know what accomplished liars politicians and bureuacrats of all stripes are. It is part of their being, telling lies, and the bigger the better!!
The Berlin wall came down since it was no longer relevent - the West's EU left wing orientation had seen to that!
Britain should join Norway back in EFTA and start rebuilding and expanding EFTA into a sensible European club of like-minded trading nations - enticing EU/Euro members out to join them away from the corrupt, inefficient (Brussels & Strasbourg), expensive, and undemocratic existing unrealistic Federally minded group.
The EU shambles and "gravy train" must be stopped in its tracks!
If Britain left EU and instead joined EFTA would
Britains net contribution per inhabitant to the EU budget most likely be higher compared to what Britain pay today since Norway per inhabitant is making a larger net contribution compared to Britain there as an EU member enjoys a rebate
Britain would as norway have to make a treaty concessions to implement almost all EU directives but Britain would loose it's political influence in the creation of those directives.
Here is an interesting take about the importance of regulations in a global market: Stefan Richter/ The Globalist
"Not the theatres of Afghanistan or Iraq, but the theatre of global regulation is the location of future global power. By omitting their voice, the United States and Britain are excising themself from helping to set regulatory standards that their people will have to accept. U.S. policymakers have created a vacuum the EU has moved to fill and Asia sides with the Europeans".
I have added Britain. With exiting the EU Britain will share Americas irrelevancy in formulating and imposing decent global trade and other laws.
The UK is an important trade destination, this is true whether the Uk is in or out of the EU. The UK's current account deficit is mostly due to the huge trade deficit the UK has with the continent, and is considered normal for an import economy. It is also worth noting that this deficit is not as high as some export economies on the continent, being better than France in terms of GDP.
Your inclusion of the UK can only be seen as your opinion, as there is no way of telling unless the UK leaves and decides not to make a stand in the WTO, which I do not see as likely.
EU regulations go much further than the WTO, they deal with consumers protection laws, safety regulations, health, human rights, industrial standards and plethora of other laws that guarantee a fair go for all.
Here is one American example that would have never been allowed in the EU. When America tried to switch to the metric system in the mid 1970 the food industry fought tooth and nail to prevent that from happening, but accepted metric nutritional information labelling with open arms. Ever since then the bulk of Americans, who have no clue what a gram is are in the dark of how much sugar, salt and what have you they ingest.
The UK uses both Imperial and metric systems, overwhelmingly the Imperial system is the most popular.
The UK has never really fitted in to the continental system.
The single market in services is still incomplete, so the service sector relies on the WTO rules.
Many of the EU standards are based on ones originating in the UK, yet they are more expensive and the directives fit badly in a 'Common Law' system.
Anything Britain and the US, or other countries want export to the EU has to conform to its specifications. If metric China on the rise insists as it does now that every aircraft flying into its airspace, or landing there has to do so in metric measurements, Britain and the US have not the best times ahead of them.
A Victorian wrote about European integration - how it would develop, its character and future prospects - even before the French Fuonding Fathers of EU - Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman - were born in 1888 and 1886. He warned England and Ireland would become provinces of Europe and would not be saved if UK joined a confederation of European nations which would develop from a great European crisis. Everything he published about EU has come to pass. His word on EU's future would be fulfilled as well. Events are paving the way for it
For the life of me, I don't understand how David Cameron thinks that the other EU members will let him get away with cherry picking the bits of the common market he likes (ie access to it) and ignoring the bits it doesn't like (ie the common rules that create a level playing field). His position is akin to arguing that while the UK wants to be free to compete in the Olympics, it wants a special exemption from the rule against performance enhancing drugs. In relation to the EU, the unfair boost that Cameron wants for the UK are exemptions from the social, employment and environmental protections that have made Europe a relatively clean, benign, pleasant place to live for most of its inhabitants (as compared to say somewhere like China).
The tragic-comic part about Britains talk about leaving the EU is that many EU countries are performing lots of reforms to reduce the size of their public sector, liberalising their labour markets, improving private sector competitiveness and reducing social transfers due to the German "reforms for cash program"
It is that he gets to, or the treaties don't get changed to help the single currency any further.
The other members want that little agreement of theirs to become a proper EU treaty, not happening it the UK gets more of what it wants. It is called bartering.
The british position is lots of empty air
The rest of Europe can just make the necessary treaties outside the framework of the EU if Britain is to complicated to deal with even though it increase the risk that the rest of Europe will simply decide to leave it's union with Britain in order to avoid the need for funding extra facilities. Basically, Britain is seriously annoying the north european free market economies if Britain try to prevent necessary changes to the EU in order to minimize the future risk that north european tax money has to be spend bailing out southern europe
Seems to me, that the time has come were northern europe has to make tough stances against a certain island there is trying to sabotage necessary reforms to give Europe a strong economy.
Shortly to your statement that "many EU countries" (care to name them?) are performing "lots of reforms" (care to tell how many? what are they?) to reduce the size of their public sector:
No, they are not.
1979, 1997, 2015...How many referendums do we need before we make a descision?
It reminds me of the proverbial "drowning man clutching at straws". Europe is in the throes of a financial cataclysim & hence the (undue) respect for Britain's opinion/support. Don't read too much into it, TE!
The average net public debt of the eurozone is actually lower than the net public debt of USA, the eurozone is having a positive current account surplus and the eurozone is having national budget deficits there are much lower than the british and US national budget deficit.
Kind of ridiculus to talk about an Eurocrisis. Seems to me, that it is USA and Britain there is having the crisis affected economies.
Political, cultural, business and scientific commentary about Britain, the spiritual and geographical home of The Economist
The SNP manifesto: The second-longest suicide note in history
Remembering Cardinal Francis George: Good-bye to a hard-nosed Chicagoan
Democracy in America
The Economist explains: Congress's influence over foreign policy
The Economist explains
Graphic detail
Britain's election campaign: April 20th: The SNP promises to shower money...
China and Pakistan: Corridor of power
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more