European thread

[Pillager]

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
I think you're right when you say that the English complain more than most other countries, but then again, throughout history England was always a bit different from Europe due to the fact that it's an island.

Correct. Notwithstanding all the pro and anti arguments for the EU and the Euro, the UK is a special case, and is not just another European country.

Part of the reason we complain so much is because of the nonsense we are told by our politicians, of both parties. Throughout our time in the EU, our politicians have said one thing, whilst another thing is being said and agreed upon on the continent. If we had known what we know today, we would not have joined in the 1970s. If our politicians were honest with us and said occasionally what was being said by Paris and Berlin, where, after all, most of the decisions are made anyway, then we would probably feel less cheated.

I would love us to be a 'partner' of the EU, with a free trade agreement.

As for the loss of ag. support. Ag. is a tiny part of our economy and is, and has been for 2 centuries, of far smaller importance here than on the continent. The vast amounts of money we pay into the CAP that would be returned to us would easily subsidise our farmers, if we wanted to continue to do so. Obviously a different argument.

 

[MrPresident]

I would love us to be a 'partner' of the EU, with a free trade agreement.

I don't see how this is possible? We are committed to forming a single market with the rest of Europe. To do this you need economic union, i.e. no borders, the same technical specifications, equal qualifications for jobs, labour mobility etc. And I can't see how you can achieve that without some form of political union. So we either need to get out of the single market and go back to a free trade, which I view as impossible, or we need to push on ahead.

the UK is a special case, and is not just another European country.

We have the 4th largest economy in the world, an equal population to that of France and close links to America. I completely agree we are a special case. [being serious]

no one really dared a naval invasion after the Romans and Vikings.

People have dared (Spain, France and Germany) it is just that they haven't been successful. The last time we were invaded was 1066 and William the Stormin' Norman. Unless of course you count William of the House of Orange and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as invasion (I don't because Parliament invitied him but you could view it as such).

the English government

No such thing.

i am not a bladdy european!

I don't think anyone is a "bladdy" European.

wretched red tape

Do you know why it is called red tape?

Still changing the name off the E.U will just make more people disagree with it

Not if we changed to something like, "Europe sponsored by Coca Cola". Well maybe they would disagree more...

Are there thopusands of people starving in spain i think not

So how many people need to be starving to deserve our aid?

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by MrPresident
labour mobility etc. And I can't see how you can achieve that without some form of political union. So we either need to get out of the single market and go back to a free trade, which I view as impossible, or we need to push on ahead.

And how much labour mobility is there in the European Union or the Euro Zone? Very little.

 

[MrPresident]

And how much labour mobility is there in the European Union or the Euro Zone? Very little.

Indeed. There is in fact not much more labour mobility in Britain than Europe. But your point is a good one.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Indeed. There is in fact not much more labour mobility in Britain than Europe. But your point is a good one.

Hmm, there is a fair amount of labour mobility in Britain. I know of plenty of people who have moved down from the north for work, and many who have moved north, too. It's not too difficult to move from Kent to Cumbria - I have relatives who have done so.

Despite that we have regional imbalances, and a booming London and SE combined with areas in the north in deep recession. Imagine that on a European scale in the Eurozone, where for 90% of people there is next to no labour mobility across countries. Proponents of the Euro, IMO, are putting political idealism ahead of economic and cultural realism, and I don't want to be involved when it all ends in tears.

 

[MrPresident]

Hmm, there is a fair amount of labour mobility in Britain.

It is incredibly hard to move from the North to the South East of England. Not only is their limited job information but the house prices are a great barrier to movement. Then there is the social ties people have to certain areas (families, history etc). I imagine that is certain areas of Europe there would be just as much mobility of labour as their is in Britain. However a major problem for me is that multitude of lanaguages. We need one main lanaguage (not an offical one but a main one as in the United States) before we even think about political union. I believe that language should be English but then again I am extremely bias.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by MrPresident

It is incredibly hard to move from the North to the South East of England. Not only is their limited job information but the house prices are a great barrier to movement. Then there is the social ties people have to certain areas (families, history etc). I imagine that is certain areas of Europe there would be just as much mobility of labour as their is in Britain. However a major problem for me is that multitude of lanaguages. We need one main lanaguage (not an offical one but a main one as in the United States) before we even think about political union. I believe that language should be English but then again I am extremely bias.

Well, however hard it is to relocate oneself in Britain, it will be far, far harder to do so across Europe, and that is my main reason for my wish for us not to join the Euro. No-one has yet satisfactorily explained how different areas will adjust to differing economic circumstances.

E.g.

LEt's pretend that Portugal is in recession, becasue the ECB has set the interest rate with the economies of France and Germany in mind, who, we shall assume, are booming. Therefore, the IR is 6%, but Portugal needs 2%. In a suitable economic area, people would move away from the recession hit area towards the booming area, and thus some of the pressures are relieved. You say it's very hard to move across the UK - it'd be 10 times harder for the average worker to move fom Portugal to, say, Berlin. Result? A deepening of the economic crisis, and, possibly, serious unrest.

This is an issue that has not been resolved, and shows no signs of being resolved. You cannot put political idealism ahead of economic realism. Thus, we don't join. Period.

 

[MrPresident]

No-one has yet satisfactorily explained how different areas will adjust to differing economic circumstances.

You are missing out a vital point. In an single currency region (say the UK) it not just mobility of factors of production which is important. You also have to have convergance of economies. For example the economy of London must be fairly similar to the economy of Yorkshire. Now if you have a low convergance of economies then you need a high rate of mobility. This is the case in America and why the dollar works for such a large area. The economies of Virginia and California are very different but because people are more willing to move around America this is counteracted. In Europe the opposite is true, you have a low mobility of labour but a high convergance of economies (particularly the core of Europe - The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg). The problem with the UK is that our economy is not that converganced with Europe and we have a low rate of mobility (between us and Europe). However this is not, as you say, a reason for not joining the Euro as there is substantial region in which the single currency could still work and there are no really accurate figures (as there never are in economies) as to the exact mobility and convergance between the UK and Europe. But probably we could get away from joining a single currency if it was between us and the above mentioned core of Europe, however it is very unclear about whether that would be the same as for the current Eurozone.

This would be a lot easier to explain using a diagram and if you have any doubts then you best ask Greadius. I bet he could explain it better.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by MrPresident

You are missing out a vital point.

I'm aware of that point, I just couldn't be bothered to type any more .

Despite the convergance in Europe, there will be a time where different parts of the Eurozone are in recession and expansion, and labour mobility is an exremely important part in any economic unit. As you say, the US has it. Not only does the US have labour mobility, she also has high fiscal transfers between states. The Eurozeone has neither. I have never read a satsifactory account from a Euro supporter explaining how he expects the Eurozone to function with no labour mobililty and extremely limited fiscal transfers. It just won't work for many countries, and certainly not for Britain.

To go back to one of your earlier points:

And I can't see how you can achieve that without some form of political union. So we either need to get out of the single market and go back to a free trade, which I view as impossible, or we need to push on ahead.

You seem to be saying that we should push on towards political union, despite your view that "We need one main lanaguage (not an offical one but a main one as in the United States) before we even think about political union"

It seems to me that you're saying that political union is a prerequisite for the Euro's success, but that English should be spoken by all before we even consider political union. Well, obviously, it is not spoken by all, so what should we do?

 

[Andz83]

Let's face it. We're the god-meant rulers of this planet, so let's all ally and wipe the yanks out.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by Andz83
Let's face it. We're the god-meant rulers of this planet, so let's all ally and wipe the yanks out.

No chance. If any allying is to done round here it will be with the Yanks, not against them.

 

[Andz83]

erm... yes, the Yanks with the Pakis. apart from that, I don't see many allies for you hegemo.. .whatever guys.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Why would you want to wipe the Yanks out i agree george bush and donald rumsfled and certain extremists like the klu klax clan but so should the B.N.P in this country every coutry has extremists/left wingers and right wingers therefore your post is stupid as it generlaises the entire population of the U.S.A because of a few stupid politicans.

Back to the subject a free trade agreement would be good and we would be able to subside are economy after we get back from the E.U what we are paying at the moment.

Everyone deserves help. But there are more urgent cases eg Africa not a european country such as spain. We have a duty in afric IMO because we ruined it with colonization. We should wipe out world debt intrest payments on future loans and not ask for any money back on existing loans.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by Andz83
erm... yes, the Yanks with the Pakis. apart from that, I don't see many allies for you hegemo.. .whatever guys.

I don't understand. Could you explain?

 

[Andz83]

forget it, guys. better hep me finding that song.

 

[Smaasnekje]

I do REALLY HATE the European Union!
I come from Norway, one of the most anti-EU countries in Europe(with a proper cause too btw), and i despite the theory that some people (Who is NOT elected by the people but by other "politicians") should decide whats best, even though a whole nation is against it.

 

[JoeM]

The Good 'Ole US of E, let's do it boys! Whoopee! Then we can open a big ole can of whoop-ass on everyone else!

Not going to happen is it? Oh well.

I think we should open our minds to creating a new kind of political system while we also consider tried and trusted methods. I'd like to think that Europe has been doing this kind of thing for so long, we should be better at it than the US, but it's probably wishful thinking.

Anyway, my point is that people seem to have taken a rigid stance in what is a developing entity.

I'd truly like to see European leaders not being at odds with each other all the frickin' time. At the moment it's the UK with Danish backing against France/Germany on CAP...Why are those two always in bed with each other?

 

[insurgent]

France and Germany aren't always in bed with each other.

1. They have fougth each other several times in history and their disputes were the core of the two European world wars.
Therefore it is natural they would agree on a lot of things, but they do not agree on most areas.

2. They aren't pitted against each other now, Chirac and Blair just have some personal dispute, rather insignificant I would say.
If you're referring to the expansion of the union and the financing problems, then I'd say they aren't at odds with each other there either. On the contrary, the recent agreement of Germany and France is probably the beginning of the end of a very long dispute over the financing. Britain has no part in that and is therefore not at odds with Germany and France over the CAP. They haven't solved the economic problems yet, but they aren't at odds with each other.

3. The Danish backing the UK in the dispute? In what way do we participate in what dispute? I'm pretty sure we don't, I follow our chairmanship closely, but haven't heard anything about that.


But I think you're right that we shouldn't just replicate the American system. We should build a unique and better system. We should get this right, "'cause we ain't gonna have no more chances!"

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by insurgent
France and Germany aren't always in bed with each other.

2. Britain has no part in that and is therefore not at odds with Germany and France over the CAP. They haven't solved the economic problems yet, but they aren't at odds with each other.

3. The Danish backing the UK in the dispute? In what way do we participate in what dispute? I'm pretty sure we don't, I follow our chairmanship closely, but haven't heard anything about that.

France and Germany are nearly always in bed with each other.

2. We have no part in what? In deciding the future of the CAP? If that's what you mean, that's the very problem. And we are most certainly at odds with France over it, and we have every right to be....

3. ...as are the Danish.I don't think there's been much (if anything) said publicly, but the Danes and Dutch are far closer to our position on the CAP than the Franco/German position.

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Pillager
France and Germany are nearly always in bed with each other.

2. We have no part in what? In deciding the future of the CAP? If that's what you mean, that's the very problem. And we are most certainly at odds with France over it, and we have every right to be....

3. ...as are the Danish.I don't think there's been much (if anything) said publicly, but the Danes and Dutch are far closer to our position on the CAP than the Franco/German position.

I continue to dispute it...

2. You know what you don't have a part in. You don't have a part in the Franco-German CAP settlement, and that it's not an alliance against you.

3. Yes, we are closer to your opinion than to those of many continental nations. I don't think the Dutch are, they've always been very pro-European, I believe. But yes, we are skeptical as you are. And that's good.
But we don't participate in the debate, we are neutral at the time, we have to be. So I maintain that point, just as the two others.