The Euro is here

[Drekken]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders

it seems more rational to me for the U.S and Canada to join the E.U ,toghether with China,Russia and japan.

That would work I guess. I've heard of plans to build a railway running thru the Berring straits. Allowing something to be shipped by rail from New York to Paris which would unify America, Asia and Europe by rail.
I should, for fun, build a rail system like that on the world map in CTP.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Here are links to picture's of the country specific back side's of the euro coin's.

coin's with various nice design's
Italy (very nice ,in fact wonderfull)
austria (very nice)
Greece (also very nice)
Germany (the eagle is nice)
Spain (nice)
Portugal (nice)
France (ça va)
Finland (ok)
Ireland (the celtic harp)


Country's with monarch on their coin's
Belgium (our "beloved" king)
The Netherlands
luxemburg

Italian coin's are really sweet and culturaly symbolic ,then again ,they have such a hugh cultural legasy.So has Austria and greece.

 

[Damien]

I already felt european b4.
For centuries,kings played with european people n Europe was only a cake for dynasties.
Different origins,cultures,pts of views but however one goal:search for happiness.DON'T let this logic goal be misled with some economic,political or national ****.
I want an unified Europe because it opens the eyes n make you see the other pts of views.It sweeps national propaganda led by the educational system(I'm especially talkin about France here).
How many Breton n Welsh guys know that they come from the same peole(Britons)?Some britons fled to armorique that became Britanny n some stayed n were pushed to Wales n Southwestern England(this happened during the Anglo-Saxon invasion).
That's y breton n welsh languages r so close.
However,i don't like modern EUROPE(bureaucratic).
I want the swiss system,direct democracy.How about an european confederacy?Unified but not crushing particularism .Being opened to the other cultures n take the best from each one,BEING FREE N CRUSHING NATIONALISM!

 

[Drekken]

Originally posted by Damien
...I want the swiss system,direct democracy...

That won't be easy with 300 million people that speak different languages.

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drekken
That won't be easy with 300 million people that speak different languages.

I thought that France took care of that by insisting that EU government be conducted in French. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[Drekken]

Ok, but lots of individual citizens of Europe don't speak French. Debate is difficult if people can't understand each other. Also I wonder how they convinced the Germans to agree to this. Maybe they should of made Esparanto (sp?) the offical language of the govenment. It's a neutral language and no one would feel gyped by the French.

 

[Prometeus]

They used the Mole Antoneliana to show Antonelli's best work... But the very best of Antonelli effort IMHO is the so-called "Fetta di polenta" house, everyone in Turin knows that!!!!

For joke, a nobleman gave him a trapezius of building soil, major basis 6 m, minor basis 50 cm, in order to build a new house... and he did it!!!

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The Euro...

You all just start waiting until other European nations' domestic problems cause recessions in your own countries that are carrying the Euro.

A rather moot point, when you consider that most large economic zones parts won't be in tune all of the time. It happens in the US- Califonria goes into recession whilst the East coast is on a boom. It's unavoidable.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
We all saw how great a currency caliberated to another worked out back in Argentina, didn't we?

How is that in any way applicable to The Euro?

Originally posted by Drekken
Ok, but lots of individual citizens of Europe don't speak French. Debate is difficult if people can't understand each other. Also I wonder how they convinced the Germans to agree to this. Maybe they should of made Esparanto (sp?) the offical language of the govenment. It's a neutral language and no one would feel gyped by the French.

I thought French was "The language of diplomacy"?

This all seems rather pointless when you consider those wonderful people called "interpretors". Anyway, most European leaders can at least speak one other language- Blair can speak French fluently, and the majority of Europeans can speak at least another one language.

All EU documentation, etc is printed out in the various languages, too, so I don't really see the difficulty.

Originally posted by Damien
I want the swiss system,direct democracy.

The Swiss don't have direct democracy. True, they have a higher than average amount of participation in referenda, etc, however to say that they have true direct democracy is false.

Direct democracy is total tripe in the present climate anyway. People are simply to ignorant about the majority of political affairs to make completely educated choices on everything.

 

[Strik]

Euro money is cool. It looks almost like monopoly money. Anyhow I still have 150 guilders to spend or change.

I really felt like a super European when I had the money, I like it. Too bad everything is more expensive. The price of beers too.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Things seem nice and rosy at the moment, but I can't see European unity lasting, euro or no euro. A few right wing nationalist governments appealing to certain sectors of the electorate would soon put a spanner in the works.

And I can never take a Parliament seriously when Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a sitting member

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
A few right wing nationalist governments appealing to certain sectors of the electorate would soon put a spanner in the works.

Wouldn't happen. A truly nationalist government could never fully emerge - I don't know of any "mainstream" political parties in The EU that advocate leaving - even the Conservatives here don't advocate that, and they're about as Eurosceptic as you get. Any extremist parties in coalition government wouldn't have the power to do whatever they liked, either.

Besides, you're theory works on the premise that the majority of European post-war voters tend to actually vote for extremist parties, which hasn't really been the case.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Give it time. Just because positions are one way at the moment does not mean they will not change. Previously fringe groups are now major parts of governments (the Greens in Germany come to mind). Who can say what will or will not happen in the future.

My forecast does not work on the premise of extremism, but rather previously extremist groups changing over time and becoming more appealing, particularly to the disenfranchised or seemingly disenfranchised. Likewise, existing parties change to grab at some of the supporters of extremist movements, in order to steal their thunder, so to speak. It has happened quite recently in Australia, and the makings of it are in Europe.

In Britain, if the National Front (or whatever they are called) and other right wing extremist groups continue to gain support from both traditional Labour and Conservative voters (albeit in a small and gradual fashion), then there will probably be a move, again, slight to begin with, towards the right to gather them in.

It is always easier to appeal to peoples fears and their 'bad side', than it is to appeal to their altruism and better nature.

It matters less what the thinking of the politicians is, than the mood of the people.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Give it time. Just because positions are one way at the moment does not mean they will not change. Previously fringe groups are now major parts of governments (the Greens in Germany come to mind). Who can say what will or will not happen in the future.

PR and mixed PR systems produce this, though. As has been demonstrated by Jorg Haider in Austria, though, far right groups in coalition government are not tolerated for long.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
My forecast does not work on the premise of extremism, but rather previously extremist groups changing over time and becoming more appealing, particularly to the disenfranchised or seemingly disenfranchised. Likewise, existing parties change to grab at some of the supporters of extremist movements, in order to steal their thunder, so to speak. It has happened quite recently in Australia, and the makings of it are in Europe.

To be honest, I don't see this happeneing. people have been calling the end to The established political parties and the creation of a new order for decades, and it never happens. Look at the SDP through the 80's in Britain - a marginal force that gathers some speed for a term, and then eventually dies.

By their very nature many of these movements are oppurtunisitic, and by the same token, that oppurtunism results in their downfall, with them taking on people's short term fears, etc, but eventually dying when those subside.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
In Britain, if the National Front (or whatever they are called) and other right wing extremist groups continue to gain support from both traditional Labour and Conservative voters (albeit in a small and gradual fashion), then there will probably be a move, again, slight to begin with, towards the right to gather them in.

The National Front, The BNP and their ilk are so small and insignificant forces in politics that they are hardly worth mentioning. The NF couldn't even be considered a political force.

I certainly don't see them againing any prominance now, or at any time in the forseeable future. For them to gain even a remotely effective political position would require a huge sea-change in British politics, that as a keen observer of, I can't see hapening, ever, most probably.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
It is always easier to appeal to peoples fears and their 'bad side', than it is to appeal to their altruism and better nature.

It matters less what the thinking of the politicians is, than the mood of the people.

Yes.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Groups do not have to be as extreme as the examples given. The very fact that society is rapidly changing confuses many, many people, and to an extent angers them. If simple solutions to their problems are put forth, they most often agree with them to some extent.

I am not saying the system will change, but rather that political groups will change to enter the system, and that the overall mood will move in a direction. Change of this manner is hard to forecast, yet who would have foreseen the policies of Thatcher in 1960. Likewise, there has been a change in the Labour Party towards the centre right, and this was not forecast in 1970, or even 1980.

Change does not occur in one "sea change", but rather in salami tactics; a bit at a time. Slowly, previous extreme groups gain political legitimacy, and there is a reaction to them from the existing political establishment, which in the vast majority of cases is to try and take the ground out from under them.

I am not saying that any of those groups in particular will gain anything approaching prominance, but rather the forces and feelings they represent will become a factor in future politics.

Haider is an interesting example, in his own class even, and I would not say we have heard the last of him. It was only him, not his party, who was forced out of the coalition, IIRC.

Movements do rely upon opportunism, but the underlying factors are not short term ones. Instead, they are a conglomerate of large and confronting issues that continue to smolder and burn steadily. Not a wildfire, but it still spreads imperceptively and innexorably.

"It won't heppen overnight, but it will heppen," to quote Rachel Hunter

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Groups do not have to be as extreme as the examples given. The very fact that society is rapidly changing confuses many, many people, and to an extent angers them. If simple solutions to their problems are put forth, they most often agree with them to some extent.

But you're working on the premise that that these suggestions are automatically taken into consideration and implemented by the ruling elite in the political order, or are somehow force through. If they don't acually cause any change, then are they relevent

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I am not saying the system will change, but rather that political groups will change to enter the system, and that the overall mood will move in a direction. Change of this manner is hard to forecast, yet who would have foreseen the policies of Thatcher in 1960. Likewise, there has been a change in the Labour Party towards the centre right, and this was not forecast in 1970, or even 1980.

You're confusing the issues of political adaption with political revolution.

Also, the issue as to where the Labour party now sits ideoloically is intresting, but to me they are still centre-left. Not as centre left as some people would like, hence they brand them as traitors, etc.

Also, quite contrary to what you say, a radical change in the Labour party was envisiged by many. perhaps not in the exact shape of it today, but certainly away from it's traditional positions and on to something new.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Change does not occur in one "sea change", but rather in salami tactics; a bit at a time. Slowly, previous extreme groups gain political legitimacy, and there is a reaction to them from the existing political establishment, which in the vast majority of cases is to try and take the ground out from under them.

You're overstating the importance of extremist groups in the political process. Show me one example, post war where previous political extremists have gained legitimace, and played a singnificant part in the political process.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I am not saying that any of those groups in particular will gain anything approaching prominance, but rather the forces and feelings they represent will become a factor in future politics.

That's inevitable, though. "New" issues, such as enviromentalism, etc were pioneered by small groups, and have now become part of the political mainstream.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Haider is an interesting example, in his own class even, and I would not say we have heard the last of him. It was only him, not his party, who was forced out of the coalition, IIRC.

But, inevitably, these groups rely on personalities more than anything else.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Movements do rely upon opportunism, but the underlying factors are not short term ones. Instead, they are a conglomerate of large and confronting issues that continue to smolder and burn steadily. Not a wildfire, but it still spreads imperceptively and innexorably.

These groups inevitably set themselves around confronting an a issue or a set of issue that is of short term importance to the general population. They diliberately don't set themselves long term goals, therefore any discussion of them when the short term issue has gone is irrelevant.

They Re-emerge as different entities, however they need to re-establish themselves as something completely new, to tavckle the new short term issues, therefore they need to build themselves up once more, even to get to the paltry position of their predecesors.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
"It won't heppen overnight, but it will heppen," to quote Rachel Hunter

Not many things do happen overnight.

I'm begging to think whether you want this to happen more than you think it will happen.

I honestly don't believe that a Hitler-esque rise from nothngness to greatness is a realistic possiblity in the political climate of today.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I do not particularly want this state of affairs to come about, but I do countenance the possibility that things may come to pass in this fashion.
I do take umbrage with the suggestion that I would be in favour of a move towards right wing extremism.
The main thrust of what I am saying is that the future is not set in stone as a rosy, peaceful unified Europe. This may happen, but it may not.

"But you're working on the premise that that these suggestions are automatically taken into consideration and implemented by the ruling elite in the political order, or are somehow force through. If they don't acually cause any change, then are they relevent "

They need not be automatically taken into consideration, but rather if they create debate and feeling within the community, and alter its mood to some extent, then the ruling elite will react to this; ie jump on the bandwagon and use the issue as political capital. They may not cause change in themselves, but they may spark the beginnings of change.

There will be no revolution, but a gradual process of adaption. I did not say the Labour Party was centre right, but rather that they had moved towards it. They have moved away from the ideological left. They may not be on the centre right as such, but they have moved towards that ideological position.

A change was envisaged by some. A change in general. You said yourself
"perhaps not in the exact shape of it today", but this is my point. There was some prediction back then, but it did not aptly paint what is now.
Therefore it is difficult to predict what will not or will happen for certain.
1980, change for Labour was evident, following winter of discontent et al.


My point is not that extremists themselves will take power, but they will influence events through ideas. As to examples, just to satisfy you, we can look at Sinn Fein, at Haider in Austria, Le Pen in France, the Greens in West Germany, and the One Nation Party in Australia. It is not so much as these were the most extreme groups, but to a certain extent they were "by-products" of what could be termed "extremism", or the reaction of groups of the public to certain circumstances.

Groups do rely upon personalities, and I reiterate that we have not heard the last of Haider. He still plays a role within his party, and maintains effective control, albeit not in a parliamentary capacity.

"These groups inevitably set themselves around confronting an a issue or a set of issue that is of short term importance to the general population. They diliberately don't set themselves long term goals, therefore any discussion of them when the short term issue has gone is irrelevant.

They Re-emerge as different entities, however they need to re-establish themselves as something completely new, to tavckle the new short term issues, therefore they need to build themselves up once more, even to get to the paltry position of their predecesors. "

This analysis is correct to an extent, but there are issues that do not go away, but remain as a source of political capital. The very fact that the issues are in the public eye is the important matter.

I'm not speaking of another Hitler, but a new approach from groups on the right, political and otherwise who would use various issues to arouse the fears and prejudices of the populace to an extent that the EU will not live happily ever after.

 

[Juize]

1999:
1 € = 1,16 $

2002
1 € = 0,88 $

Guess the ####ing inflation rating here!
The last days all the shops raised prices --- just ££££ing annoying!

I mean, 3 months ago ½-liters of Coke cost 1,05 €, now its 1,4 €

JUST LOOK AT THAT GODDAM INFLATION!
Really funny, because the 900 € on my account are now practically 600 old €.

I want to killl someone.

 

[Drekken]

Originally posted by Hamlet

I thought French was "The language of diplomacy"?

This all seems rather pointless when you consider those wonderful people called "interpretors". Anyway, most European leaders can at least speak one other language- Blair can speak French fluently, and the majority of Europeans can speak at least another one language.

All EU documentation, etc is printed out in the various languages, too, so I don't really see the difficulty.

<joke>Esparanto is the language of HAM radio operators, though .</joke>

What I'm saying, coming from a bilingual country, is that having different languages within an union can lead to friction between the different groups. I'm suggesting that if a neutral language is used, everyone is on an equal footing and no one feels that they are ruled by the French. Perhaps the UK won't join because of the French language thing.

P.S. - When I raised this issue, I was talking about the citizen's of Euroland that don't have the resources that govenment agents do to understand the other languages.

 

[Knowltok 2]

I think the posters here should keep in mind that strength of a currency is more than what it converts to in terms of another one. That is relative strength and matters only to a certain extent. If the Euro gets to E .99 = $1.00 it does not make the Euro the international currency. That will be based on the strength and stability of the European economy, which for the most part is untested at this time.

I have heard that the Euro could become the currency of drug dealers though since the E500 note is more portable than the $100 bill. Whose to say...?

From an external point of view I would think that the EU would pick English as their language of choice. The EU has not only its internal communications to think of, but also their communications between the rest of the world. English is already spread throughout the world and is the International language of Aviation. I would say that Spanish would be the only possible second choice. I would think efficiency and ease of transition would outweigh cultural pride in a decision where it is easy to see that there is no other reason than pride to demand your language as the official one. I can't believe that a Frenchman really can believe that French would suit a Norwegian better than English as an official second language. Correct me if you think I am wrong, but put lots of sugar on it, since I am going through a delicate time and could cry.

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drekken
Maybe they should of made Esparanto (sp?) the offical language of the govenment.

I'd rather they make it Elvish or Klingon if we are going to insist on them using made up languages.