The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Webbo]

House prices are engineered to keep going up because that's how the whole economy works. The goverment wants you to take out expensive loans for expensive houses so the banks get more interest. Until, of course, the interest rates get so high that people start defaulting on their mortgages and the proverbial bubble pops. The banks lose money and your taxes are used to prop them back up again for the cycle to start again. Welcome to the neoliberal economic system, people.

They're not engineered to go up its just supply and demand. There's a finite amount of land to build houses on. The population grows, increasing demand, as more houses are built there's less land left to build on.

I think remains argument is that mortgage rates will go up if we leave reducing demand forcing prices down, which is possible, but it will also mean interest rates for savers will go up which is a positive for them. It's all spin.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

They're not engineered to go up its just supply and demand. There's a finite amount of land to build houses on. The population grows, increasing demand, as more houses are built there's less land left to build on.

I think remains argument is that mortgage rates will go up if we leave reducing demand forcing prices down, which is possible, but it will also mean interest rates for savers will go up which is a positive for them. It's all spin.

If you believe interest rates will go up, you should really be voting Remain given the UK's current borrowing position - a significant rise in the cost for the UK government (and small to medium businesses) to borrow would be awful for lots of people in this country.

[Webbo]

If you believe interest rates will go up, you should really be voting Remain given the UK's current borrowing position - a significant rise in the cost for the UK government (and small to medium businesses) to borrow would be awful for lots of people in this country.

They're at historically low levels already, even lower in the euro zone because of the bleak economic outlook there. They will go up eventually anyway, which will be good news for some and bad news for others.

[johnny the fox]

House prices are engineered to keep going up because that's how the whole economy works. The goverment wants you to take out expensive loans for expensive houses so the banks get more interest. Until, of course, the interest rates get so high that people start defaulting on their mortgages and the proverbial bubble pops. The banks lose money and your taxes are used to prop them back up again for the cycle to start again. Welcome to the neoliberal economic system, people.

That is partly true... but the old saying goes....buy land ! they are not making anymore of it!  plus   materials/ labour, planning, legal  costs go up every year..

[Alf Bentley]

 

Excellent article giving a Left-wing case for Brexit from Larry Elliott (Guardian Economics Editor):  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/20/brexit-best-answer-to-dying-eurozone-eu-undemocratic-elite

 

Just reading that article has me back at 50-50, having been tending Remain.

 

Just because some of the people voting Brexit are Thatcherites and English nationalists doesn't make it the wrong choice. There is a left-wing case for Brexit, too - and Elliott makes it very well.

 

A few years back, the EU focused more on redistribution and investment to develop poorer areas. Now, Thatcherism is almost written into law under EMU, and particularly the Stability and Growth Pact (heavy on the balanced-budget "stability", not so much on growth, as the democratically-elected Greek government discovered to their cost).

 

It's difficult to predict the long-term whether we're in or out, but Elliott makes the point that the short/medium-term could look pretty rocky in the EU as well as outside under a British Thatcherite Govt....particularly given the state of the Euro zone.

 

Here's Wiki on the ultra-Thatcherite "Stability and Growth Pact": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_and_Growth_Pact

 

That's not just a left wing case for leaving, that is THE case for leaving.

 

 

There might be some overlap re. EU democracy, but even that is tenuous. On democracy, you and most others on the Right, criticise the lack of democratic accountability in the EU. That's true to an extent, but exaggerated as policy decisions are ultimately made by the European Council and European Parliament, which are as accountable as democratic institutions in the UK - and democracy in the UK is far from perfect. The European Parliament is gradually getting more power. Not enough and not quickly enough....but then, in the UK we still have hereditary peers and bishops in the Lords, the centralisation of power by central govt and a voting system that is now dysfunctional.

 

The point that Elliott makes about democracy is that the EU is imposing austerity economics on EU nations. Greece was the most extreme example of that. Syriza had a democratic mandate to oppose austerity. They also sought to compromise and to cut the Greek deficit by raising taxes on wealthy shipowners and launching a major effort to prevent tax avoidance (a serious problem in Greece). The EU, as part of the "troika", rejected this and insisted that they would only be bailed out if they continued to implement failed Thatcherite "balanced budget" policies: slashing public spending, decimating pensions and raising taxes on the general population in the middle of a catastrophic slump. The Greek economy remains in crisis - caused by the irresponsibility of past Greek governments but made worse by right-wing economic policies imposed undemocratically by the EU. My recollection is that, at the time, you supported the undemocratic EU response, as you agreed with the economics behind it.

 

If people in a particular nation or across the EU vote for Thatcherite austerity, that's democracy....but they should also be able to vote for Keynesian social democracy or radical socialism if they want, without the EU imposing austerity economics. As Elliott points out, this is affecting nations other than Greece. The Stability and Growth Pact requires national governments (and not just those in the Euro) to always run a deficit of less than 3% of GDP and have debt that is less than 60% of GDP. or heading that way. At a time of low growth and high unemployment (incredibly high in countries like Spain), the EU is effectively ordering countries to increase taxes and/or slash spending: Thatcherism by diktat and a democratic outrage.

 

This table shows the situation in 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_and_Growth_Pact#Member_states_by_SGP_criteria(red figures = non-compliant or getting worse)

Pages 21 and 26 of this pdf show the 2014/15 data (deficits now just within 3% of GDP across Europe, but debt now 90% of GDP and still rising): http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2014/pdf/ee9_en.pdf

 

Elliott also makes the strong pro-Brexit point that, even though Brexit WILL make things worse in the short-term and COULD make things worse in the long-term, the Eurozone is also heading for the rocks, so things COULD get a lot worse within the EU, by effectively "hitching our wagon" to the doomed Eurozone, as he sees it. The Eurozone is the engine of Europe and it is failing, not because of EU regulation (sometimes a problem - and sometimes a great benefit) but because of compulsory austerity economics under the Stability Pact. What's worse, he's saying, is that the Eurozone has no way out of this: it can't easily restore the old national currencies, and there isn't the democratic will for further integration allowing tax and spending decisions to be taken at EU level....the wagon is stuck and sinking in the mud.

 

As someone who accepts that Brexit will make things worse in the short-term, the argument that Bremain is set to make things worse in the medium-term is a strong one. It's all very well having all sorts of employment and social rights within the EU - which the main Brexit campaigners would doubtless seek to rip up if they get their way - but that's not much good to a young person in Spain with 50% youth unemployment, as Elliott points out. The Eurozone economy is already struggling due to this compulsory austerity economics, yet the EU only offers more of the same. Eventually there'll be no money to bail out countries like Greece, or worse economic slumps across the Eurozone, or further social unrest and the rise of the Far Right. We've not learned the economic lessons of the 1930s, maybe we've not learned the political lessons either?

 

I might see myself as a nice, internationalist good guy if I vote Remain, but if it ties the British economy to a dysfunctional economic policy that cannot be reformed, maybe the right thing to do is to hold my nose and vote out with the Thatcherites and English nationalists but for different reasons? We might end up with a shite economy, but that might happen in the EU, too. We might end up with a Thatcherite bonfire of social rights and social provision, but at least we'd have some influence over that. If the EU is bound to demand austerity economics and is set to fail, we could end up with that anyway.

 

Any Left Remain posters got any arguments against that?

[Webbo]

 

 

The point that Elliott makes about democracy is that the EU is imposing austerity economics on EU nations. Greece was the most extreme example of that. Syriza had a democratic mandate to oppose austerity. They also sought to compromise and to cut the Greek deficit by raising taxes on wealthy shipowners and launching a major effort to prevent tax avoidance (a serious problem in Greece). The EU, as part of the "troika", rejected this and insisted that they would only be bailed out if they continued to implement failed Thatcherite "balanced budget" policies: slashing public spending, decimating pensions and raising taxes on the general population in the middle of a catastrophic slump. The Greek economy remains in crisis - caused by the irresponsibility of past Greek governments but made worse by right-wing economic policies imposed undemocratically by the EU. My recollection is that, at the time, you supported the undemocratic EU response, as you agreed with the economics behind it.

 

 

Syriza stood on a mandate of going back to spunking money up the wall paid for by the EU, The EU said, fairly in my opinion, you can vote for what you like but we ain't paying for it. The Greeks have effectively sold their country to the EU for hand outs and cheap loans.

 

Austerity is undoubtedly the only credible economic policy available to them while they are trapped in the Euro with no way of devaluing their currency.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Alf - one point to note about EU economic policy is I believe the EU commissioner responsible for that area at present is our very own representative, so it's possibly no suprise that austerity was pushed given our countries similar agenda at that very time.

[Webbo]

Alf - one point to note about EU economic policy is I believe the EU commissioner responsible for that area at present is our very own representative, so it's possibly no suprise that austerity was pushed given our countries similar agenda at that very time.

One unelected official forcing undemocratic policies upon unwilling countries? Surely not?

 

 

Also,austerity in this case seems to be not retiring at 50 on 80% of your salary, actually collecting income tax. It's not exactly unreasonable.

[Strokes]

Housing prices are going up and up because UK govts consistently don't do enough to build or encourage the building of new homes.

Its hard to know how many we need with uncontrolled migration.

[Carl the Llama]

Its hard to know how many we need with uncontrolled migration.

Even harder when the number of new homes built has declined almost every year since the 70's.  Bloody EU.

[Alf Bentley]

Syriza stood on a mandate of going back to spunking money up the wall paid for by the EU, The EU said, fairly in my opinion, you can vote for what you like but we ain't paying for it. The Greeks have effectively sold their country to the EU for hand outs and cheap loans.

 

Austerity is undoubtedly the only credible economic policy available to them while they are trapped in the Euro with no way of devaluing their currency.

 

 

This isn't the time to get into an extended debate about Greece, but quickly....

 

- Re. your "going back to spunking money" comment: It was the Greek equivalent of the Tories and New Labour that were guilty of the previous corruption and debt (facilitated by inadequate EU oversight & irresponsible lending).

 

- Syriza stood on an anti-austerity platform, but did seek compromise to tackle debt. However it did so on Leftist terms: fewer cuts or taxes affecting the poor, more wealth taxes, selective VAT increases, staged pension reform, defence cuts etc. You're perfectly entitled to disagree with those policies (as I'm entitled to disagree with UK Tory policies) but both parties had a democratic mandate - and Syriza DID seek compromise and DIDN'T just aim to spunk money up the wall.

Details: http://www.infobalkans.com/2015/06/23/itemized-syriza-s-proposals-creditors-nutshell

 

- The IMF (hardly a bunch of Trotskyists) clearly don't agree with your claim that "austerity is undoubtedly the only credible economic policy" for Greece: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/imfs-new-demands-on-debt-relief-could-rattle-creditors.html?_r=0

"The International Monetary Fund is increasing demands for Greek debt relief, setting up another potential standoff with creditors over the country’s bailout, and threatening to create more political and economic uncertainty at an already tumultuous time for Europe. The I.M.F.’s position opens the next act in the long-running Greek debt crisis, casting the fund against Germany and many of the other eurozone creditors.The fund is playing the role of the financial police, adamant that Greece will never return to growth if its debt burden is not sustainable. [...] While European officials have been playing up signs that Greece is bottoming out, the I.M.F. has been more skeptical about the country’s potential to raise revenue, shore up its budget and overhaul its economy".

 

- Meanwhile, here's news on the "success" of austerity economics in Greece:http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/05/13/greek-economy-contracts-again-at-start-of-2016/?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true

"With its bailout progress stalling, economic growth fell back into contractionary territory in the first three months of 2016, shrinking 0.4 per cent. It was the worst quarter for Greece since the economy was on the brink of a eurozone exit last summer and a shift back into reverse gear having managed to eke out 0.1 per growth at the end of 2015. [...] Greece’s growth figures come as its unemployment rate – still the highest in the eurozone – fell to a four-year low of 24.2 per cent in February. [...] Yesterday, officials from the eurozone’s working group made progress in approving Athens’ plans to cut pension spending and to hike VAT to qualify for its next bailout funds".

[Webbo]

This isn't the time to get into an extended debate about Greece, but quickly....

 

- Re. your "going back to spunking money" comment: It was the Greek equivalent of the Tories and New Labour that were guilty of the previous corruption and debt (facilitated by inadequate EU oversight & irresponsible lending).

 

- Syriza stood on an anti-austerity platform, but did seek compromise to tackle debt. However it did so on Leftist terms: fewer cuts or taxes affecting the poor, more wealth taxes, selective VAT increases, staged pension reform, defence cuts etc. You're perfectly entitled to disagree with those policies (as I'm entitled to disagree with UK Tory policies) but both parties had a democratic mandate - and Syriza DID seek compromise and DIDN'T just aim to spunk money up the wall.

Details: http://www.infobalkans.com/2015/06/23/itemized-syriza-s-proposals-creditors-nutshell

 

- The IMF (hardly a bunch of Trotskyists) clearly don't agree with your claim that "austerity is undoubtedly the only credible economic policy" for Greece: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/imfs-new-demands-on-debt-relief-could-rattle-creditors.html?_r=0

"The International Monetary Fund is increasing demands for Greek debt relief, setting up another potential standoff with creditors over the country’s bailout, and threatening to create more political and economic uncertainty at an already tumultuous time for Europe. The I.M.F.’s position opens the next act in the long-running Greek debt crisis, casting the fund against Germany and many of the other eurozone creditors.The fund is playing the role of the financial police, adamant that Greece will never return to growth if its debt burden is not sustainable. [...] While European officials have been playing up signs that Greece is bottoming out, the I.M.F. has been more skeptical about the country’s potential to raise revenue, shore up its budget and overhaul its economy".

 

- Meanwhile, here's news on the "success" of austerity economics in Greece:http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/05/13/greek-economy-contracts-again-at-start-of-2016/?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true

"With its bailout progress stalling, economic growth fell back into contractionary territory in the first three months of 2016, shrinking 0.4 per cent. It was the worst quarter for Greece since the economy was on the brink of a eurozone exit last summer and a shift back into reverse gear having managed to eke out 0.1 per growth at the end of 2015. [...] Greece’s growth figures come as its unemployment rate – still the highest in the eurozone – fell to a four-year low of 24.2 per cent in February. [...] Yesterday, officials from the eurozone’s working group made progress in approving Athens’ plans to cut pension spending and to hike VAT to qualify for its next bailout funds".

"The International Monetary Fund is increasing demands for Greek debt relief, 

 

What is debt relief apart from allowing them to default or paying the debts for them? People in California might be willing to do that for people in Kentucky but to expect Germans to, work into their late 60s/70s and pay their taxes to prop up Greeks so that they can retire at 50, especially while the Greeks are calling them Nazi's is extremely unrealistic. It's another reason why the EU super state is unrealistic.

[Alf Bentley]

Alf - one point to note about EU economic policy is I believe the EU commissioner responsible for that area at present is our very own representative, so it's possibly no suprise that austerity was pushed given our countries similar agenda at that very time.

 

 

I really don't think that a single EU commissioner would carry that much weight. A little influence, maybe, but the commissioners are supposed to be proposing policy for the EU as a whole, not representing the interests of their home nation. Domestic interests are mainly represented at the Council and the Parliament. 

 

"Austerity economics" is built into Economic & Monetary Union (EMU) - or the Stability & Growth Pact, more specifically. That's been ongoing for about 25 years, but was less of an issue before the Stability Pact imposed strict limits on deficit and debt as a % of GDP (effectively outlawing any policy other than "balanced budget" neo-liberalism or very mild Keynesianism) - and before Europe was affected by the 2008 financial crash.

 

 

Its hard to know how many we need with uncontrolled migration.

 

 

Thatcherites reckon that free markets will sort everything out through supply and demand, don't they?

 

So how come, as prices rise, there isn't increased supply coming in to profit from those high prices by building more homes, eventually bringing prices down again?

 

If you think that it's due to excessive regulation and red tape, why hasn't the Tory government done anything about that? They've been in power for 6 years - I don't think you can blame Labour or the Lib Dems for that one.

 

Of course, they could have given local authorities more funds for housing and got the money back through tax or through the proceeds of the growth generated or the household spending freed up by lower house prices.

 

But this is, after all, the party that PREVENTED councils from spending the proceeds of council house sales on new housing stock.

 

You'd almost think that they saw it as their sole purpose to protect the interests of those with large amounts of wealth and capital, who wouldn't like to see the high value of their homes fall. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

What is debt relief apart from allowing them to default or paying the debts for them? People in California might be willing to do that for people in Kentucky but to expect Germans to, work into their late 60s/70s and pay their taxes to prop up Greeks so that they can retire at 50, especially while the Greeks are calling them Nazi's is extremely unrealistic. It's another reason why the EU super state is unrealistic.

Many, many Greeks would point at the irony of you highlighting German pensioners given the previous role reversal.

And I think the point with debt relief is that reducing the amount owed now, would give Greece a greater ability to pay more to its creditors in the long run. It's essentially a judgement call for creditors in terms of the security of getting the intended returns back and the time frame for doing that.

[Strokes]

I really don't think that a single EU commissioner would carry that much weight. A little influence, maybe, but the commissioners are supposed to be proposing policy for the EU as a whole, not representing the interests of their home nation. Domestic interests are mainly represented at the Council and the Parliament.

"Austerity economics" is built into Economic & Monetary Union (EMU) - or the Stability & Growth Pact, more specifically. That's been ongoing for about 25 years, but was less of an issue before the Stability Pact imposed strict limits on deficit and debt as a % of GDP (effectively outlawing any policy other than "balanced budget" neo-liberalism or very mild Keynesianism) - and before Europe was affected by the 2008 financial crash.

Thatcherites reckon that free markets will sort everything out through supply and demand, don't they?

So how come, as prices rise, there isn't increased supply coming in to profit from those high prices by building more homes, eventually bringing prices down again?

If you think that it's due to excessive regulation and red tape, why hasn't the Tory government done anything about that? They've been in power for 6 years - I don't think you can blame Labour or the Lib Dems for that one.

Of course, they could have given local authorities more funds for housing and got the money back through tax or through the proceeds of the growth generated or the household spending freed up by lower house prices.

But this is, after all, the party that PREVENTED councils from spending the proceeds of council house sales on new housing stock.

You'd almost think that they saw it as their sole purpose to protect the interests of those with large amounts of wealth and capital, who wouldn't like to see the high value of their homes fall.

Because the booms always fall under labour governments

[Alf Bentley]

What is debt relief apart from allowing them to default or paying the debts for them? People in California might be willing to do that for people in Kentucky but to expect Germans to, work into their late 60s/70s and pay their taxes to prop up Greeks so that they can retire at 50, especially while the Greeks are calling them Nazi's is extremely unrealistic. It's another reason why the EU super state is unrealistic.

 

 

Debt relief can mean all sorts, not necessarily a 100% write-off. It could mean restructuring of repayments over a longer time-span, a partial write-off or interest-free repayment of capital.

 

Certainly some extreme scenario like the one you depict (Germans working 20 years longer than Greeks) wouldn't be acceptable.

 

But if the alternative is a country descending into permanent depression, going bankrupt, suffering all sorts of social chaos - and ending up unable to pay back any debt - some compromise might be beneficial to all.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I really don't think that a single EU commissioner would carry that much weight. A little influence, maybe, but the commissioners are supposed to be proposing policy for the EU as a whole, not representing the interests of their home nation. Domestic interests are mainly represented at the Council and the Parliament. 

 

"Austerity economics" is built into Economic & Monetary Union (EMU) - or the Stability & Growth Pact, more specifically. That's been ongoing for about 25 years, but was less of an issue before the Stability Pact imposed strict limits on deficit and debt as a % of GDP (effectively outlawing any policy other than "balanced budget" neo-liberalism or very mild Keynesianism) - and before Europe was affected by the 2008 financial crash.

 

I'm not suggesting the commissioner is only representing the interests of their home nation persay, but that it would be natural to assume that maybe we have a bit more weight in this policy area, given the UK is the EU's financial centre and that's what our commissioners brief is - and so if our government is pushing a particular economic agenda, it's not suprising that train of thought is echoed at a European level.

If I recall correctly, when the global crash first hit, Gordon Brown was a big voice on the matter both inside the EU and internationally, we were a lead voice.

[Webbo]

Many, many Greeks would point at the irony of you highlighting German pensioners given the previous role reversal.

And I think the point with debt relief is that reducing the amount owed now, would give Greece a greater ability to pay more to its creditors in the long run. It's essentially a judgement call for creditors in terms of the security of getting the intended returns back and the time frame for doing that.

Why? I'm not anti any nationality.

 

You've still borrowed that money and spent it. If the Greeks don't pay it back then somebody else has to pay it, either another country or more precisely another country's taxpayers or the people that lent the money end up paying for Greece's expenditure. Why should the banks pay for someone else's expenditure and if they're not getting their money back why would they lend anymore?

[Webbo]

Debt relief can mean all sorts, not necessarily a 100% write-off. It could mean restructuring of repayments over a longer time-span, a partial write-off or interest-free repayment of capital.

 

Certainly some extreme scenario like the one you depict (Germans working 20 years longer than Greeks) wouldn't be acceptable.

 

But if the alternative is a country descending into permanent depression, going bankrupt, suffering all sorts of social chaos - and ending up unable to pay back any debt - some compromise might be beneficial to all.

The best thing they could do is go back to the Drachma and default on their debts. There would be some short term pain but it would be over eventually. While they're in the Euro they have no chance.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Why? I'm not anti any nationality.

 

You've still borrowed that money and spent it. If the Greeks don't pay it back then somebody else has to pay it, either another country or more precisely another country's taxpayers or the people that lent the money end up paying for Greece's expenditure. Why should the banks pay for someone else's expenditure and if they're not getting their money back why would they lend anymore?

Public debt is a lot more complex than how you phrase it - it's not quite the same as a mortgage.

But there is a general principle that can be applied and that is if a situation moves to a make or break point, then there's a need for the creditor to fully evaluate their position to maximise their return.

There's various ways of going about it, but it's about judging the pro's and con's of each approach - so for example the period for repayment could be extended, but the downside on that is that then takes longer to realise the return and it reduced shout yield so it could be the case that writing of some debt to allow a higher level of repayment over shorter period results in a better return.

You've also got to remember public debt tends to change hands quite a bit - it's a commodity that is traded and traded and traded on again, so if Greece's repayment position can be improved by writing off portions of debt, that may make the remaining debt more valuable for the current holders, enabling them to sell it on again at an overall profit.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

The best thing they could do is go back to the Drachma and default on their debts. There would be some short term pain but it would be over eventually. While they're in the Euro they have no chance.

With so many other countries (not just EU countries) running high public debts, that move would not only be catastrophic for Greece but for all governments with high borrowing - it would create a confidence crisis, making government debt harder to sell, pushing up the price world wide.

[Webbo]

With so many other countries (not just EU countries) running high public debts, that move would not only be catastrophic for Greece but for all governments with high borrowing - it would create a confidence crisis, making government debt harder to sell, pushing up the price world wide.

I said the best thing they could do, I didn't say it would be best for the rest of us.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm not suggesting the commissioner is only representing the interests of their home nation persay, but that it would be natural to assume that maybe we have a bit more weight in this policy area, given the UK is the EU's financial centre and that's what our commissioners brief is - and so if our government is pushing a particular economic agenda, it's not suprising that train of thought is echoed at a European level.

If I recall correctly, when the global crash first hit, Gordon Brown was a big voice on the matter both inside the EU and internationally, we were a lead voice.

 

 

I'm sure we do have a fair bit of influence. I'm guessing, but I imagine that has more to do with us having the EU's largest financial centre (as you say) and being one of the biggest economies. Although I'm sure "our" commissioner has some influence, I doubt that it's massive.

 

I've read articles suggesting that the strict "near balanced budget" requirements under EMU and the Stability Pact have more to do with German preferences - their strong preference for avoiding debt and running a budget and export surplus, if possible (for understandable historical reasons - the 1930s hyperinflation/crash that contributed to the rise of the Nazis).

 

Brown was indeed a big voice at the time of the crash, but more on a global level than purely within the EU (cue someone posting his slip of the tongue in parliament when he announced that he'd "saved the world, er, I mean the banks..."  ). Oh! Go on! I'll post it: 

 

[johnny the fox]

I'm sure we do have a fair bit of influence. I'm guessing, but I imagine that has more to do with us having the EU's largest financial centre (as you say) and being one of the biggest economies. Although I'm sure "our" commissioner has some influence, I doubt that it's massive.

 

I've read articles suggesting that the strict "near balanced budget" requirements under EMU and the Stability Pact have more to do with German preferences - their strong preference for avoiding debt and running a budget and export surplus, if possible (for understandable historical reasons - the 1930s hyperinflation/crash that contributed to the rise of the Nazis).

 

Brown was indeed a big voice at the time of the crash, but more on a global level than purely within the EU (cue someone posting his slip of the tongue in parliament when he announced that he'd "saved the world, er, I mean the banks..."  ).

Oh! Go on! I'll post it: 

The same man who said   " iv'e put an end to boom and bust"....just before the crash..

[Alf Bentley]

The same man who said   " iv'e put an end to boom and bust"....just before the crash..

 

 

His comment about saving the world in 2008 actually had more justification than his claim to have ended boom and bust.