Leaving the ERM, 1992 - Professor Vernon Bogdanor FBA CBE
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 05. 2016
- The Britain’s love affair with the the European Monetary System (ERM), precursor to the euro, and its political ramification www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
In October 1990, in the last days of her premiership, Margaret Thatcher announced, against her better judgement, that Britain would join the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System (ERM), precursor to the euro. In September 1992, during John Major’s premiership, Britain found herself unable to sustain membership and left the ERM. This had fundamental consequences for the Conservative Party, destroying its reputation for sound economic management, and legitimising euroscepticism, so making it less likely that Britain would join the euro.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Fascinating to watch Mrs T at PMQs. Effectively forced from office, but not defeated, yet even under those circumstances is able to perform. Like her or loathe her, that takes real character.
Always hugely enjoyable to relive "Match of the Day" moments from Parliament. By contrast, the proceedings in the Bundestag are soporific.
I love your videos! I think I've watched them all at least once. They really aught to make political history a part of the national curriculum!!
They also OUGHT to make English one, as well.
Oh, wait...
@@jazzhands7771 And, as I recall, history was something all my classmates and I learned in school along with the political events that occurred throughout it. 😆
Excellent speech. Most informative.
The audio in all of his videos is very low.
Monetary union was never explained to us. Perhaps that was the problem. Europe was always sold in Britain as nothing more than trade. To my knowledge no newspapers ever acknowledged it was all about political unification, no politician ever acknowledged it was all about political unification (except Michael Foot, Tony Benn, and Enoch Powell, all three of whom were derided and in todays speak de-platformed, cancelled).
Is it any wonder that Britain became known as the awkward partner when any new initiative was treated as an attack on our sovereignty by a political class that understood little and a public that understood less.
It was Maastricht when the true aspirations of the project first became apparent and the rise of euro-scepticism was immediate.
Had the full truth been admitted by Heath or Wilson we would in my opinion have either never joined, left in ‘75 or still been members.
It was the slow erosion of parliamentary sovereignty when our politicians seemed more and
more unable to act in our interests. Even a man as high as Gordon Brown was told he could not deliver “British jobs for British workers”.
The project made fools of our politicians, but only in the context we understood it. Had it been explained that we were heading for full political and therefore monetary union all the rules coming out of Brussels would have made sense.
The pro European movement lost the Brexit vote as far back as 1970 when the Heath government decided to conceal the true nature of the European project.
A now famous FCO report of 1972 pointed out exactly what joining the EEC entailed.
When the Brexit vote arrived the sceptics could honestly say that they discovered the plot and had told the public the truth that was now undeniable. The euro-philes could point to no historic honesty from their side.
It is a shame that leaving had to cause such splits in our society but when you consider the age of voters generally is it any wonder that younger voters who grew up after Maastricht voted remain, they instinctively knew that a higher level of government above Westminster existed and were not enraged about it or it’s consequences. The older generation couldn’t accept a level above their elected representatives at Westminster and felt lied to and betrayed and they were.
In conclusion it is my opinion the public had no chance and no way of knowing what the EEC was all about but had Heath or Wilson spelled out exactly what membership entailed or the media had done their jobs properly (because the EEC didn’t hide its intentions). We may never have been in or may have played our full part and still been a member rather than the Foot dragging, complaining, awkward partner we became.
very informative!!thank you xx
A blessing in disguise.
John Major was a weak and feeble Prime Minister. He rammed through the Maastricht Treaty which supplanted
free trade ONLY into POLITICAL UNION - the formation of the European Union but WITHOUT a people's referendum.
He and his One Nation No Nation cabal of Clarke, Howe, Patten, Hurd and Weaseltine deposed the magnificent Margaret
Thatcher. This with the ERM catastrophe culminating in Black Wednesday led to their crushing landslide GE defeat in 1997.
@Kit As a True Blue Conservative voter myself, I cringe with shame at his disastrous record
in office. He was from the wet liberal wing of the party - as much a failure as the outgoing
socialists in 1979. That abysmal landslide defeat to ''Demon Eyes'' Blair - and how true THAT
turned out to be - was a condemnation of his ineptitude and feeble weakness.
@Kit One of the few things Blair got right was when he mocked and derided Major at the Despatch Box
at a PMQ's with the damning words....''WEAK! WEAK! WEAK!''
Major started the disastrous obsession with generalist academic Universities and away from vocational education
Lamont is an underrated Chancellor Of The Exchequer. His biggest problem was the Hurd/Clarke/etc axis undermining him.
Yeah - but sadly he accepted the ERM policy - which was always bound to fail.
@@alphabetaxenonzzzcat To be fair he was never enthusiastic about it, but was surrounded by the EUphiles.
Inflation targeting by central banks is poverty creating and a way of making those least able to afford higher prices pay the most for it so that those better able to afford higher prices don't need to, can have the target as a bonus for profit making and bank borrowing, while depositors need to increase savings by the target rate figure to remain in sight of reaching their own mortgage deposit targets provided that banks don't lower deposit rates. This however, they have with full regulatory unlawful approval, in the last few decades done, i.e. lowered them mercilessly and unlawfully, captured the housing market for themselves while holding depositors hostage, using their savings as collateral for mortgage capital, cheating them with lower than inflation rate interest rates, and contributing in a major way to the ever-widening wealth gap, to unaffordable house prices and rents, and to increasing homelessness,
That is very interesting. I've never heard it summarised so neatly. That is exactly the position we are in - borrowers with inflated capital assets holding everyone else hostage.
What's the big deal about Ministers resigning from the Government? In America, you'd just appoint a new Secretary.
Yeah, it has been a famous saying "don't change horses in the middle of the stream". In the US you don't care because your broadcasting needs its daily 'Breaking News"-event. Another reason why you have that "entertaining" clown as your President.
Difference is that UK Ministers are traditionally _of the elected MPs of the party in government._ Imagine the Secretaries of XYZ being selected purely from elected Congressmen.
@@Dear_Mr._Isaiah_Deringer How are secretaries selected?
@@samjoshi1812 By the Prime Minister of the governing party.
@@lennylaa1686 American secretaries