The proposed draft EU constitution

[Jon_in_london]

can be viewed in .pdf format here (http://europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/other/oth260503_en.pdf)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
can be viewed in .pdf format here (http://europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/other/oth260503_en.pdf)


Europeans...enjoy. :eek:

[Shane Costello]

Oh yeah, and the rising Euro means that those of us living in countries that do most of their trade with the UK and US can look forward to living in very interesting times. :(

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Oh yeah, and the rising Euro means that those of us living in countries that do most of their trade with the UK and US can look forward to living in very interesting times. :(


Euro goes down...Euroskeptics crow as to how weak it is and it shows its a bad idea

Euro goes up...Euroskeptics complain as to how it damages exports and it shows its a bad idea


BTW This was a thread about the European Constitution not about the benefits or otherwise of living in Euroland.
Lets not try and derail it so early on eh?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Euro goes down...Euroskeptics crow as to how weak it is and it shows its a bad idea

Euro goes up...Euroskeptics complain as to how it damages exports and it shows its a bad idea

Conclusion: There are absolutely no redeeming economic features to EMU. The Euroskeptics are being proved right as time goes by.

BTW This was a thread about the European Constitution not about the benefits or otherwise of living in Euroland.
Lets not try and derail it so early on eh?

EMU is an intrinsic part of the process of EU integration. Indeed many os it's proponents spoke of it being primarily a political, rather than an economic exercise. The issues of a European constitution and EMU are intrinsic parts of a single process.

[BobK]

Did I hear correctly that Tony Blair isn't going to allow the citizens of Great Britain to vote on this constitution?

If so. How do you Brits feel about this?

[OBgac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shane Costello


Conclusion: There are absolutely no redeeming economic features to EMU. The Euroskeptics are being proved right as time goes by.



Incorrect. You are drawing a sweeping conclusion based on the fact that the EURO is a floating currency! What do you want? To move to a fixed currency with whatever country you are doing your trade with the most in that particular year?





EMU is an intrinsic part of the process of EU integration. Indeed many os it's proponents spoke of it being primarily a political, rather than an economic exercise. The issues of a European constitution and EMU are intrinsic parts of a single process.



The issue of the constitution (and therefore this thread) should be more a debate about the loss of soverignity (or not) resulting from the introduction of the EU constitution. The Euro currency is not relevant in this particular discussion as the constitution does not force anyone to join the Euro whereas for example the draft talks about majority voting in issues like tax fraud which the Tories in the UK are saying it is the slioppery slope in losing their veto on tax issues.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posoted by OBgac:
Incorrect. You are drawing a sweeping conclusion based on the fact that the EURO is a floating currency! What do you want? To move to a fixed currency with whatever country you are doing your trade with the most in that particular year?

What do you mean by incorrect? So what in your opinion did contribute to Euro weakness? Are you suggesting that a strengthening Euro relative to other currencies isn't going to make Eurozone exports dearer?

Yes the Euro is a floating currency. So what? The problem with EMU for Ireland is that economic policy is being set in Frankfurt, not Ireland. For the past few years the ECB set interest rates at a level that was much to low for Ireland. This contributed to inflation, unsustainable growth and loss of competitivenss. It iosn't a question of fixing a currency to that of another country, it's a question of a country retaining the means to set an economic policy most suited to it's needs.

(Just on an historical note the Irish pound was indeed linked with sterling until 1978).

The issue of the constitution (and therefore this thread) should be more a debate about the loss of soverignity (or not) resulting from the introduction of the EU constitution. The Euro currency is not relevant in this particular discussion as the constitution does not force anyone to join the Euro whereas for example the draft talks about majority voting in issues like tax fraud which the Tories in the UK are saying it is the slioppery slope in losing their veto on tax issues.

Loss of sovreignty is what EMU is all about. The effects of sovreignty already surrendered are very relevant when weighing up the effects a further loss of sovreignty might entail. For instance at the start of EMU Irish politicians dismissed fears of Ireland entering EMU without the UK on the premise that the UK would have to enter EMU within three years. That didn't happen, and indeed the chances of the UK ever entering EMU are fading fast. For that reason any claims our politicians make about the effects of the constitution must be taken with a shovel or two of salt.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Loss of sovreignty is what EMU is all about. The effects of sovreignty already surrendered are very relevant when weighing up the effects a further loss of sovreignty might entail. For instance at the start of EMU Irish politicians dismissed fears of Ireland entering EMU without the UK on the premise that the UK would have to enter EMU within three years. That didn't happen, and indeed the chances of the UK ever entering EMU are fading fast. For that reason any claims our politicians make about the effects of the constitution must be taken with a shovel or two of salt.

Hey Shane, it's okay! The UK have had the word "federal" struck from the constitution, so UK sovereignty is guaranteed! No United States of Europe for us! Allegedly...:rolleyes:

[bjornart]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Hey Shane, it's okay! The UK have had the word "federal" struck from the constitution, so UK sovereignty is guaranteed! No United States of Europe for us! Allegedly...:rolleyes:

I think I'll vote 'no' in the next referendum as well, just in case the EU keeps sucking.

[OBgac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shane Costello

What do you mean by incorrect? So what in your opinion did contribute to Euro weakness?


What contributed to the weakness was that the DEM entered into the Euro at too high a rate, actually pretty close to a 5 year peak if I remember correctly. There was only one direction the Euro could go after that.


Are you suggesting that a strengthening Euro relative to other currencies isn't going to make Eurozone exports dearer?


Please show me where I remotely suggested anything of the sort.





Yes the Euro is a floating currency. So what?


So what? You suggested that the Euro going down and up was a sigh of its failure. I refuted that by explaining to you that all floating currencies go up and down and it doesnt imply success or failure at all. Do you understand this now?




The problem with EMU for Ireland is that economic policy is being set in Frankfurt, not Ireland. For the past few years the ECB set interest rates at a level that was much to low for Ireland. This contributed to inflation, unsustainable growth and loss of competitivenss. It iosn't a question of fixing a currency to that of another country, it's a question of a country retaining the means to set an economic policy most suited to it's needs.


Nothing there I disagree with. Just the fact that the benefits of Euro i.e. stable currency, no boom and bust in the housing market (even after September 11), reduced risk exposure to those companies who actually export to Euroland etc etc.

I say its too early to say if the problems outweigh the benefits.





Loss of sovreignty is what EMU is all about. The effects of sovreignty already surrendered are very relevant when weighing up the effects a further loss of sovreignty might entail. For instance at the start of EMU Irish politicians dismissed fears of Ireland entering EMU without the UK on the premise that the UK would have to enter EMU within three years. That didn't happen, and indeed the chances of the UK ever entering EMU are fading fast. For that reason any claims our politicians make about the effects of the constitution must be taken with a shovel or two of salt.

Have you got a link for your promise from the un-named Irish politicians who promised that the UK would enter in three years or are you just throwing that in? Thanks!




Two other points:

A small independent currency like the IEP was does not have any soverignity if it free floats on the international markets. Playing with the IEP cross rates was often an source of mild amusement in quiet afternoons in the trading rooms of Frankfurt and London as a few hundred million were bought and sold for the amusement of prop traders. The Central Bank in Ireland can set the interest rate for sure but it would never have the reserves to defend the exchange rate.


(Also I think you are slightly confused on your economic terms. Ireland has been in the EMU long before the Euro and I think the UK did actually enter the EMU the same time as Ireland before it was forced out by Soros. I assume you mean three years after the Euro rates were fixed which was two years before actual notes and coins came about?)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by bjornart


I think I'll vote 'no' in the next referendum as well, just in case the EU keeps sucking.

I'm skeptical about the EC (rather than being an anti-EC euro-skeptic) and my feeling at the moment is that the costs outweigh the benefits wrt the UK's entry into the EC, but I don't know if the issues would be the same for Norway?

[JamesM]

Originally posted by BobK
Did I hear correctly that Tony Blair isn't going to allow the citizens of Great Britain to vote on this constitution?

If so. How do you Brits feel about this?

I'm not that bothered. I see no reason why our elected representatives shouldn't make decisions for us, that's why we vote for MPs in the first place. There's nothing that wrong with referenda, but I feel in the case of Europe they will end up being popularity contests rather than the result of sober reflection on the economic and political pros and cons.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
What contributed to the weakness was that the DEM entered into the Euro at too high a rate, actually pretty close to a 5 year peak if I remember correctly. There was only one direction the Euro could go after that.

How would that in itself contribute to Euro weakness? What did contribute to weakness was the fact that investors had no confidence in the Eurozone. What is being attepmted has no precedent i.e. monetary union without prior political union, coupled with a failure on the part of European economies to undertake root and branch reform.

Please show me where I remotely suggested anything of the sort.

Here:
[I]Incorrect. You are drawing a sweeping conclusion based on the fact that the EURO is a floating currency![/B]

So what? You suggested that the Euro going down and up was a sigh of its failure. I refuted that by explaining to you that all floating currencies go up and down and it doesnt imply success or failure at all. Do you understand this now?

Yes I did suggest that the Euro's decline in value was a sign of it's failure, not that currency declines are alway indicative of economic failure. I never implied otherwise.

Nothing there I disagree with. Just the fact that the benefits of Euro i.e. stable currency, no boom and bust in the housing market (even after September 11), reduced risk exposure to those companies who actually export to Euroland etc etc.

I say its too early to say if the problems outweigh the benefits.

How is a stable currency only possible with EMU? Why hasn't ehre been any boom and bust in the UK, for instance, or other EU countries outside EMU? What about the fact we do most of our trade with countries outside the Eurozone?

What about the Growth and Stability pact, and the likliehood that France and Germany will breach it's conditions?

Have you got a link for your promise from the un-named Irish politicians who promised that the UK would enter in three years or are you just throwing that in? Thanks!

On it's way.

A small independent currency like the IEP was does not have any soverignity if it free floats on the international markets. Playing with the IEP cross rates was often an source of mild amusement in quiet afternoons in the trading rooms of Frankfurt and London as a few hundred million were bought and sold for the amusement of prop traders. The Central Bank in Ireland can set the interest rate for sure but it would never have the reserves to defend the exchange rate.

The Central Bank had the power to devalue the Irish currency, if needed. This they did in 1993. That instrument of economic policy is now lost to us. IIRC speculation can be nipped in the bud by setting marginal interest rates of 100%. The ability to set interest rates is vital, given the effects it has on the money supply. Right now interest rates in the Eurozone are to low for Ireland, and to high for Germany.

(Also I think you are slightly confused on your economic terms. Ireland has been in the EMU long before the Euro and I think the UK did actually enter the EMU the same time as Ireland before it was forced out by Soros. I assume you mean three years after the Euro rates were fixed which was two years before actual notes and coins came about?)

You're confused, not me. EMU is the Euro. The notes and coins are nothing more than tokens, and have no bearing on the value of the currency. The UK had entered the Exchange rate mechanism (ERM), then dropped out. ERM was based on the premise that European currencies should shadow the DM. ERM collapsed completely soon after the the Uk's withdrawal.

[Malachi151]

Conclusion: There are absolutely no redeeming economic features to EMU. The Euroskeptics are being proved right as time goes by.

Wrong. Conclusion, the dollar now has the competition that is has unfairly kept down for 50 years, and the house of US build on hedge is going to be stressed.

Hmm.... let's see what is the alternative, the whole world continues to bow to the US dollars and Americans unfair trading advantages forever? Get real.

Its noe step closer to world currency, global labor markets, and the inevitable socilaism.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JamesM


I'm not that bothered. I see no reason why our elected representatives shouldn't make decisions for us, that's why we vote for MPs in the first place. There's nothing that wrong with referenda, but I feel in the case of Europe they will end up being popularity contests rather than the result of sober reflection on the economic and political pros and cons.

Wise words, and, I suspect, the reason why Blair is pushing for the economic tests and a referundum sooner rather than later, and which may proof to be teflon-coated Tone's undoing. GOrdon Brown for PM, anyone?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Wrong. Conclusion, the dollar now has the competition that is has unfairly kept down for 50 years, and the house of US build on hedge is going to be stressed.

Hmm.... let's see what is the alternative, the whole world continues to bow to the US dollars and Americans unfair trading advantages forever? Get real.

HAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! :D

[bjornart]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I'm skeptical about the EC (rather than being an anti-EC euro-skeptic) and my feeling at the moment is that the costs outweigh the benefits wrt the UK's entry into the EC, but I don't know if the issues would be the same for Norway?

The process to enter the EEC was stopped after a referendum in 1972, the process to enter the EU was stopped after a referendum in 1994. Currently our membership in the European Economic Area (EEA) dictates our economic relationship with the EU, and our association agreement concerning the Schengen aquis governs how we police our borders. In many ways we have to do whatever the EU decides, without having a say in how it's decided.
A future referendum will still be influenced by both what the EU is, and what it is perceived as becoming. So whatever happens with the EC is going to be important to our future relationship with all our neighbours, except Russia.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
How would that in itself contribute to Euro weakness? What did contribute to weakness was the fact that investors had no confidence in the Eurozone. What is being attepmted has no precedent i.e. monetary union without prior political union, coupled with a failure on the part of European economies to undertake root and branch reform.



The DEM was overvalued when it entered. Therefore the only way to go is down as it has the largest weighting in the Euro.




Yes I did suggest that the Euro's decline in value was a sign of it's failure, not that currency declines are alway indicative of economic failure. I never implied otherwise.


Just as its current rise has nothing to do with its roaring success, its decline had nothing to do with its failure.




How is a stable currency only possible with EMU? Why hasn't ehre been any boom and bust in the UK, for instance, or other EU countries outside EMU? What about the fact we do most of our trade with countries outside the Eurozone?


I never suggested that a stable currency is only possible with EMU. I am saying that it is a major help for tiny countries that they can eliminate speculative attacks on their currency.



What about the Growth and Stability pact, and the likliehood that France and Germany will breach it's conditions?



What about it? It was designed to keep Italy under control. Now it needs to be changed. Does that make it a failure that it has to be changed? Euroskeptics think so, I would contend that its natural that changes are made after 5 years.




On it's way.

Tks



The Central Bank had the power to devalue the Irish currency, if needed. This they did in 1993. That instrument of economic policy is now lost to us. IIRC speculation can be nipped in the bud by setting marginal interest rates of 100%. The ability to set interest rates is vital, given the effects it has on the money supply. Right now interest rates in the Eurozone are to low for Ireland, and to high for Germany.

Marginal rates of 100% will not work if the cost of borrowing on the short position is less than the expected devaluation over the period of the open position. I bring you back to the Soros example when he forced out the GBP out of ERM even though the BoE had short term rates at 80%(?). Also high overnight, tom/next rates push the interest curve up all along thereby creating huge destabilisation for personal and corporate borrowers. Big multinationals hate uncertainty. The IEP regardless of the Central Bank was like a cork floating on a huge ocean.





You're confused, not me. EMU is the Euro. The notes and coins are nothing more than tokens, and have no bearing on the value of the currency. The UK had entered the Exchange rate mechanism (ERM), then dropped out. ERM was based on the premise that European currencies should shadow the DM. ERM collapsed completely soon after the the Uk's withdrawal.

Mea Culpa. Got my ERM's mixed up with my EMU's. Difficult to keep track of all these in two languages

[Cleopatra]

EU is not only about EURO and economical relationships, the proposed consitution failes to secure vital issues of Security for certain member -countries.

For example, according to the Constitution it's not clear that the Greek borders are the borders of EU. This has a vital importance for Greece.In common legal thinking, if Turkey attacks Greece, one reasonable person would think that this would be considered as an attack to EU BUT not for the geniouses in Brussels...

Also, there is another major issue with the Euro Army. Will the Euro Army replace the national armies, if yes, will EU takes the responsibility of defending every member?

Many more issues will rize with the free movement of the citizens since the Western countries like Germany are the last who wish such a thing.

And many many more... so, it's not just EURO

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
EU is not only about EURO and economical relationships, the proposed consitution failes to secure vital issues of Security for certain member -countries.

For example, according to the Constitution it's not clear that the Greek borders are the borders of EU. This has a vital importance for Greece.In common legal thinking, if Turkey attacks Greece, one reasonable person would think that this would be considered as an attack to EU BUT not for the geniouses in Brussels...

Also, there is another major issue with the Euro Army. Will the Euro Army replace the national armies, if yes, will EU takes the responsibility of defending every member?

Many more issues will rize with the free movement of the citizens since the Western countries like Germany are the last who wish such a thing.

And many many more... so, it's not just EURO

This is to be expected. The US had a much esier time forming a federal system then the EU will because of lack of historical value fo the states, yet the US did not truely become a Federal country until after the Civil War. Prior to that it was more like what the EU will be. It will be a long time before the EU becomes like the US, but it will eventally happen I think, probably not in my lifetime, but eventually the federal powers of the EU will be much greater then the member countries like the US and states now.

[Cleopatra]

My favourite dream is a Europe from Atlantic to Uralia...

Europe will find its way, indeed but only under two conditions:

1. UK must leave the Union.

2.Russia must join it.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
My favourite dream is a Europe from Atlantic to Uralia...

Europe will find its way, indeed but only under two conditions:

1. UK must leave the Union.

2.Russia must join it.


Interesting one Cleopatra. To be honest though, it could take 50 years before Russia is ready IMHO.
Also you have the niggling problem of Ukraine (so corrupt it makes Russia look like a Scandanavian country) and Belarus the last dictatorship in Europe.

As for the UK leaving, were they ever really in it? :D

[Jon_in_london]

My favourite dream is a Middle East from Atlantic to Indian...

The Middle East will find its way, indeed but only under two conditions:

1. Isreal must leave it.

2. Palestine must join it.

[Cleopatra]

Corruption is not an serious reason ... OBgac... we are talking about the EU here :D

Seriously, Russia has strong cultural bonds with Europe. It's more Europe than Great Britain. It wil be easier for us to absorb them.

As for UK, I seriously think that it will better for the country itself to leave, since it seems that the whole issue has caused tremendous problems to our friends in UK that I happen to like and admire and since they never believed in EU why to be part of it.

I don't think that they must be asked to leave but to decide it by themselves.It's a hard decision but a brave one.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Corruption is not an serious reason ... OBgac... we are talking about the EU here :D

Seriously, Russia has strong cultural bonds with Europe. It's more Europe than Great Britain. It wil be easier for us to absorb them.

As for UK, I seriously think that it will better for the country itself to leave, since it seems that the whole issue has caused tremendous problems to our friends in UK that I happen to like and admire and since they never believed in EU why to be part of it.

I don't think that they must be asked to leave but to decide it by themselves.It's a hard decision but a brave one.

The UK not joining the Euro-zone is part of the Bush administration's plan for maintianing American global supremacy.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151


The UK not joining the Euro-zone is part of the Bush administration's plan for maintianing American global supremacy.

Raise the Red Banner!!!
All power to the People!!!
:D

[Cleopatra]

You know Malachi, we know the Brits for years now... They didn't wait for Bush to appear to show how they feel about the...Continent...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You know Malachi, we know the Brits for years now... They didn't wait for Bush to appear to show how they feel about the...Continent...

Well aware of that. Actually isn't Blair pushing to enter the euro-zone?

Politics is always about taking advantage of opportunity.

American conservative groups have been lobbying EECs not to join the EU, they have also been funding and getting members to bring up the issue of God in the Constitution, which created waves, and they have been trying to court British economic interests to pull Britain away from the EU and into a Blue water trading strategy to keep Britain from entering the euro-zone. I think that Britain is currently the largest investor in the US.

If Britain enters the euro-zone then OPEC can more easily switch to the euro, which the US wants to avoid, which is largely what the Iraq war was about.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Kodiak


HAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! :D D'oh! That is what I was going to say.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
The DEM was overvalued when it entered. Therefore the only way to go is down as it has the largest weighting in the Euro.
How can this be true, the DM doesn't even exist anymore?

Just as its current rise has nothing to do with its roaring success, its decline had nothing to do with its failure.

So why did it decline?

I never suggested that a stable currency is only possible with EMU. I am saying that it is a major help for tiny countries that they can eliminate speculative attacks on their currency.

What, by abolishing their economic sovreignty? That's a bit like surgical castration as a response to VD! :eek:

Big multinationals hate uncertainty. The IEP regardless of the Central Bank was like a cork floating on a huge ocean.

It wasn't floating, it was tied to the DM. What big multinationals really hate are high costs, something membership of EMU is contributing to in this country.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

How can this be true, the DM doesn't even exist anymore?


There is no answer to this. You are going around in a circle. The DEM existed, it was put into a basket of currencies but it still was the leading currency. If it was overvalued it implies that the Euro was overvalued at the start.



So why did it decline?

See above




What, by abolishing their economic sovreignty? That's a bit like surgical castration as a response to VD! :eek:

My point is that Ireland effectively had only one tool of economic soverignty, interest rates and that it was given up for other benefits, outlined in my previous posts. Only the USA and argueably the Euro can actually claim to be close to some sort of soverignty as they have huge internal markets.




It wasn't floating, it was tied to the DM. What big multinationals really hate are high costs, something membership of EMU is contributing to in this country.


I put it to you that the politicans, labour shortages and greed have more to do with the out of control costs of living in Ireland than the Euro.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
There is no answer to this. You are going around in a circle. The DEM existed, it was put into a basket of currencies but it still was the leading currency. If it was overvalued it implies that the Euro was overvalued at the start.

Was the DM was overvalued at the time of it's abolition? The Euro was overvalued in terms of it's exchage rate with the dollar, but how did the value of the DM effect this rate? Wasn't it set by the ECB?

My point is that Ireland effectively had only one tool of economic soverignty, interest rates and that it was given up for other benefits, outlined in my previous posts. Only the USA and argueably the Euro can actually claim to be close to some sort of soverignty as they have huge internal markets.

But you haven't said how these benefits were dependent on EMU membership? If so then how come countries outside the Eurozone (including small ones like Denmark and Switzerland) enjoy these benefits? How come the Irish pound wasn't subjected to speculative actions between the breakdown of ERM and EMU? How is the Euro less susceptible to speculators than other currencies? And what relationship is there between the size of internal markets and economic sovreignty. I mean Norway and Switzerland are two of the most prosperous countries in Europe, yet their internal markets are tiny. Why don't they see the need to join the EU, let alone surrender their economic sovreignty?

I put it to you that the politicans, labour shortages and greed have more to do with the out of control costs of living in Ireland than the Euro.

Politicians: The people who said the Euro was such a good idea.

Labour shortages: In theory shouldn't be a problem. There's a vast pool of unemployed to draw from in the Eurozone. Why aren't they over here looking for work? There's nothing to stop them.

Greed: Absolutely. Greed is manifesting itself in the form of the public sector trade unions and their inflated pay demands. Greed is also been exacerbated by interest rates set in Frankfurt that are too low fdor Ireland (and too high for Germany).

[CapelDodger]

(Just on an historical note the Irish pound was indeed linked with sterling until 1978).
The Welsh pound still is linked with sterling. This is a cross we have to bear. South Wales is still, believe it or not, a manufacturing area but it has to operate in an economy massively dominated by the London financial community. Which has no connection with South Wales to speak of but dicatates such things as exchange and interest rates. Wales would be demonstrably better off with the Euro rather than sterling. So, to keep this on-thread, I object to the constitution not giving citizens outside the Euro-zone the right to operate in Euros if they wish.
Another objection is the lack of the word "federal". It is, of course, the desire of all progressive and right-thinking persons to see a greater and greater reduction of national sovereignty, with all the carnage and pointless complications that causes, and a creation of a Europe - nay, a world - of regions and great cities. Which might take less than 50 years.

As to the UK pulling out completely, that might turn out to be necessary in the long-term - UK gets out, falls flat on face, rejoins and inspires the Grand Unionisation of 2040 - but it seems unlikely. The UK would have to re-enter at some point, unless everything falls apart and the world goes to hell in the next few decades, which is not out of the question. The whole Europe question is coming to a head in the UK and there has to be some kind of catharsis in the next year at most. If not, it'll dominate the 2005 election anyway.

As to this British person's view of being denied a referendum - on something very trivial - I'm not bothered at all. Given the lamentable state of knowledge and bigoted opinion that so many of my fellow citizens glory in, I'll pass. Democracy is an over-rated practice.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
The Welsh pound still is linked with sterling. This is a cross we have to bear. South Wales is still, believe it or not, a manufacturing area but it has to operate in an economy massively dominated by the London financial community. Which has no connection with South Wales to speak of but dicatates such things as exchange and interest rates. Wales would be demonstrably better off with the Euro rather than sterling.

How would Wales be "demonstrably" better off with the Euro? I mean, if Welsh manufacturing is suffering in an economy massively dominated by the City of London, how will it prosper in an economy massively dominated by Frankfurt (especially since German manufacturing demonstrably isn't)?

It is, of course, the desire of all progressive and right-thinking persons to see a greater and greater reduction of national sovereignty, with all the carnage and pointless complications that causes, and a creation of a Europe - nay, a world - of regions and great cities. Which might take less than 50 years.

Excuse me, but sovreign nation states have been responsible for precious little of the world's suffering. Carnage and pointless complications have been caused by supranational authorities, such as Wilhelmine and Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union etc. Neither is it coincidental that these examples weren't democracies.

Given the lamentable state of knowledge and bigoted opinion that so many of my fellow citizens glory in, I'll pass. Democracy is an over-rated practice.

What a contemptible piece of crap! :mad:

[Tony]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


As to this British person's view of being denied a referendum - on something very trivial - I'm not bothered at all. Given the lamentable state of knowledge and bigoted opinion that so many of my fellow citizens glory in, I'll pass. Democracy is an over-rated practice.


So you favor elitism over populism? Lets all capitulate to our fascist overlords, after all, they know best. :rolleyes:

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Democracy is an over-rated practice.


Ohhhh Sir... It seems that this forum is crowed with members of Royal Families...:cool:

Charmion...I have started to like nihilists...

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Tony:
So you favor elitism over populism? Lets all capitulate to our fascist overlords, after all, they know best :rolleyes:

The real cause of carnage and pointless complications in Europe enscapulated in a nutshell.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by BobK
Did I hear correctly that Tony Blair isn't going to allow the citizens of Great Britain to vote on this constitution?

If so. How do you Brits feel about this?

Not far off wanting to take to the hills with an AK-47 and resist it the old fashioned way. :mad:

I'm seriously contemplating emigrating to America if this goes on much longer. Are they still taking people these days?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus




I'm seriously contemplating emigrating to America...

You're welcome in Texas!! :)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


Not far off wanting to take to the hills with an AK-47 and resist it the old fashioned way. :mad:

I'm seriously contemplating emigrating to America if this goes on much longer. Are they still taking people these days?

Riiight. Because America and Blair are cooperating and Blair's actions are reflective of his American agreements you want to then move to the country that is causing Blair to act the way that he is. Hmm.. makes sense.

I mean come on, look at the ties between America and Britain, you think that Blair is not acting in concert with Bush and co? :p

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
Riiight. Because America and Blair are cooperating and Blair's actions are reflective of his American agreements you want to then move to the country that is causing Blair to act the way that he is. Hmm.. makes sense.

I mean come on, look at the ties between America and Britain, you think that Blair is not acting in concert with Bush and co? :p

Blair was a rampant Europhile years before Bush became president.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

The Welsh pound still is linked with sterling. This is a cross we have to bear. South Wales is still, believe it or not, a manufacturing area but it has to operate in an economy massively dominated by the London financial community. Which has no connection with South Wales to speak of but dicatates such things as exchange and interest rates. Wales would be demonstrably better off with the Euro rather than sterling.

I really cant fathom this logic! You have a chip (of coal) on your shoulder about interest rates being controlled by the British government. You feel that London, being all of 200miles or so away from Swansea, has no connection with South Wales to speak of. Yet you feel that a federation of Germany, France, Holland etc... would be better able to tailor thier combined fiscal policies just to suit South Wales?

Boggles the mind!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
I'm seriously contemplating emigrating to America if this goes on much longer. Are they still taking people these days?

You're welcome in Michigan. We're surrounded by fresh water on three sides, but coming from an island nation, that probably doesn't bother you.

;)

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Riiight. Because America and Blair are cooperating and Blair's actions are reflective of his American agreements you want to then move to the country that is causing Blair to act the way that he is. Hmm.. makes sense.

I didn't post my reasons, but feel free to make them up for me if you want. :rolleyes:

Actually, I've always rather admired America. If we really had to join up to a super-state then I'd far rather become part of the USA than Europe.

Of course, I'd rather stay independant than do either one.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You're welcome in Michigan. We're surrounded by fresh water on three sides, but coming from an island nation, that probably doesn't bother you.

;)

Not at all! Sounds good to me... :)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


I didn't post my reasons, but feel free to make them up for me if you want. :rolleyes:

Actually, I've always rather admired America. If we really had to join up to a super-state then I'd far rather become part of the USA than Europe.

Of course, I'd rather stay independant than do either one.

Do you not see how the formaiton fo the EU is Americanization of Europe? If you like America then why would you not want to duplicate the federal system that has made America "successful"?

The arguments posed by many people in the EU today are similar to those posed by people during the early days of America wanting to keep the federal government weak and the states much stronger. After the Civil War the states lost much of their power, with the feeral government becoming much stronger, which has, both contributed to Americans success as a nation and also brought problems.

An ununited Europe will never be able to compete with America.

You can eauser remain independant and weak and get continually pushed around and pushed out by America, or step up and comepte. You lose something either way. Thats the nature of competition though.

[aerocontrols]

http://controls.ae.gatech.edu/people/mjohnson/images/Pics/ha/euborgcollective_lrez.jpg

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Do you not see how the formaiton fo the EU is Americanization of Europe? If you like America then why would you not want to duplicate the federal system that has made America "successful"?

It's nothing to do with the system. When I look at Europe, I am looking at foreigners. I think of them in much the way I think of Japanese or Tibetans. Europeans are part of "Them".

Not that I think of myself as any better than foreigners of course. Just different.

Now I know that technically Americans are foreigners to me as well, but they don't FEEL foreign. They feel like... cousins I suppose. They feel like part of "Us".

An ununited Europe will never be able to compete with America.

I don't particularly see "competing with America" as a desirable thing. Why would I want to do that? I'd far rather co-operate and co-exist with them.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I really cant fathom this logic! You have a chip (of coal) on your shoulder about interest rates being controlled by the British government. You feel that London, being all of 200miles or so away from Swansea, has no connection with South Wales to speak of. Yet you feel that a federation of Germany, France, Holland etc... would be better able to tailor thier combined fiscal policies just to suit South Wales?

Boggles the mind!

His point is simple. The interest rates of the EU suit at the moment places like Port Talbot more than Eddie George's interest rates do or have done for the last 15 years. Geographical proximity has nothing to do with it.

[CapelDodger]

From Jon-in-London:
I really cant fathom this logic! You have a chip (of coal) on your shoulder about interest rates being controlled by the British government. You feel that London, being all of 200miles or so away from Swansea, has no connection with South Wales to speak of. Yet you feel that a federation of Germany, France, Holland etc... would be better able to tailor thier combined fiscal policies just to suit South Wales?
The difference that matters between regions is not the country they are assigned to or the language they speak, it is the kind of business they do. In South Wales the basic revenue-earner - the way that most people turn their effort into product - is manufacturing. Manufacturing is an industry that runs on debt, when it's running properly. That means that a low interest-rate is favourable to manufacturing industry. Manufacturing also benefits from forward-planning, which is made more difficult by variations in exchange rates. Given that world-wide foreign exchange movements are more than 20 times the amount of real trade in actual products and raw materials you can see why exchange rate variations are as co-ordinated with manufacturing's requirements as the weather is with ferry-men's. In South Wales we have to work with exchange and interest rates that are driven by current rates of house-price inflation in London. You can't fathom my logic, but that's because you're confined to the shallows. Within the UK the London economy - which is financial, and creates no demand down here to speak of - is massively dominant, both because it's right in the faces of the politicians and because it handles enormous amounts of business with a tiny number of people. And we, in South Wales, are shackled to that. In a combined Europe London (and Frankfurt, and Paris) are diluted, and the manufacturing-oriented regions have a greater influence. So yes, an interest rate crafted in Europe is going to be better for where I live and make my living than one crafted in the Bank of England.

[CapelDodger]

Addendum:
I forgot to point out that banks like high interest rates, for obvious reasons. Which puts them at odds, sometimes, with manufacturing.
I heard about banking when I was but a child, and decided to go into it. I think it was Hoover who, when he finished being president, was put on the board of a bank and said to friend, a month or two later, "Why did nobody tell me about banking before?". Or Coolidge, whatever. No, Coolidge died ("How could they tell?").
I only wish I'd known then about Law; when I did it was too late.

[Malachi151]

I don't particularly see "competing with America" as a desirable thing. Why would I want to do that? I'd far rather co-operate and co-exist with them.

Cooperation with America means doing what Americ awants, you should know that by now. Look at the way America is telling the Eu to stay out of space.

More importantly I was talking about econmic cooperation. If you want an economy that can compete with the American economy then you have to take on Americna ways, or else continue to have a weaker economy.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:[/I]
[B]In a combined Europe London (and Frankfurt, and Paris) are diluted, and the manufacturing-oriented regions have a greater influence.

German manufacturing is "demonstrably" on it's knees. How come?

What markets does Welsh manufacturing serve? If it's the UK, then wouldn't Welsh manufacturing be hurt by the current rise in the Euro, much more so than any interest rate set in London?

Originally posted by OBgac:
His point is simple. The interest rates of the EU suit at the moment places like Port Talbot more than Eddie George's interest rates do or have done for the last 15 years. Geographical proximity has nothing to do with it.

Do they? They don't suit Ireland or Germany, so how do they suit Port Talbot?

Originally posted by Seismosaurus:
Not far off wanting to take to the hills with an AK-47 and resist it the old fashioned way. :mad:

Even if a referendum is held, keep that AK-47 close to hand.

The EU and it's tenuous relationship with democracy (www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-05-31&id=2388&searchText=)

There has been much sniggering in the Western media over Tuesday’s referendum in Iraq on re-electing Saddam Hussein, since it is obvious that the only permissible answer was Yes. But how different are referendums in the European Union? On Saturday the Irish will be voting for the second time on the Nice Treaty, because when they voted on it in June 2001 they got the answer ‘wrong’ and voted No. If the vote is now Yes, the televised jubilation across the Continent will be as synthetic as it was in Baghdad.


Originally posted by Kodiak:
You're welcome in Michigan. We're surrounded by fresh water on three sides, but coming from an island nation, that probably doesn't bother you. ;)

Been there, done that, worn the (Spartans) t-shirt. :)

Freshwater? Yeuuuch! :p

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I don't particularly see "competing with America" as a desirable thing. Why would I want to do that? I'd far rather co-operate and co-exist with them.

Cooperation with America means doing what Americ awants, you should know that by now.

No, I've never seen anything that made me think that. And I've not often seen America do things that I wouldn't be fairly happy to go along with anyway.

Look at the way America is telling the Eu to stay out of space.

I'm not aware that they are, or could if they wanted to.

More importantly I was talking about econmic cooperation. If you want an economy that can compete with the American economy then you have to take on Americna ways, or else continue to have a weaker economy.

For me, the economic arguments come a long way down the list of why we should or should not join Europe. Frankly, if the UK has a choice of joining Europe or slipping a few places down the list of rich nations, I'll take my chances on being poor.

[Malachi151]

Seismosaurus

Well, yeah, that is typical I guess, I mean that is" the way that Brits are", right? You have more in common with Americans than mainland Europeans.

I just think its amusing that so many Europeans don't want to give the their national individuality, but that IS what made America successful. Its just an interesting thing, because most Americans didn't want to do it either, back in the day. Clearly a federal system is more successful, but there is something abotu it that many people don't like initially, its giving up individuality to be part of a group. It speaks to success and happiness being obtained by separate means.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Seismosaurus

Well, yeah, that is typical I guess, I mean that is" the way that Brits are", right? You have more in common with Americans than mainland Europeans.

That's the way that this particular Brit is, yeah. I don't speak for the rest of the Brits, but it does seem a fairly common attitude amongst people I know.

I just think its amusing that so many Europeans don't want to give the their national individuality, but that IS what made America successful. Its just an interesting thing, because most Americans didn't want to do it either, back in the day. Clearly a federal system is more successful, but there is something abotu it that many people don't like initially, its giving up individuality to be part of a group. It speaks to success and happiness being obtained by separate means.

That's all great, but if you are going to be part of a group then that group has to have a common identity of some sort, I think. A group loyalty. Texans and New Yorkers may be very different, but they both think of themselves as Americans.

Europe, on the other hand, consists of - what twenty odd now is it? Whatever, a load of different countries many of whom speak different languages, have different cultures, etc, etc. There is no commonality there.

The people who want a United States of Europe don't seem to think this matters a jot. Personally I think it is the single most important aspect of a nation.

I have absolutely no notion whatsoever of being a European. I don't think of myself that way, and I deeply resent attempts to foist such an identity onto me.

[Malachi151]

That's all great, but if you are going to be part of a group then that group has to have a common identity of some sort, I think. A group loyalty. Texans and New Yorkers may be very different, but they both think of themselves as Americans.

Well, not so prior to the Civil War though. States used to be more like countrie in America, states rights was a huge deal.

In the 1800s it was as common for a man to say he was a Virginian or Texan or a Carolinian as an American.

This changed becuase of immigration for one thing, peopel coming to America were coming to America, not New York, or Virgina. They had no roots in the states. The colonists though, they were very defensive of statehood.

Just a point to consider.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Jon-in-London:

Manufacturing is an industry that runs on debt, when it's running properly. That means that a low interest-rate is favourable to manufacturing industry.

Exsqueeze me but but arent British interest rates almost as low as they possibly can be at the moment? Also, if as you say, interest rates are being decided to suit house prices in London- then they will remain that way ad infinitum. So why are you complaining?

I will join you though, in bemoaning the current state of British manufacturing. What do you think can be done to give it a pick up?

PS: what did you mean when you say that manufacturing runs on debt, when its running properly?

Thanks.

[CapelDodger]

From Jon-in-London:
Exsqueeze me but but arent British interest rates almost as low as they possibly can be at the moment? Also, if as you say, interest rates are being decided to suit house prices in London- then they will remain that way ad infinitum. So why are you complaining?
At the last setting of UK interest rates, London-based house-price inflation was given as one reason for maintaining interest rates at a higher rate than the rate of demand in the economy would dictate. In the past Eddie George has agreed, very publicly, that interest rates set to deal with inflation in the Soth-East would cost jobs in (specifically, because that's where he was being interviewed) the North-East - a manufacturing region. He said that higher unemployment was a reasonable price for restraining house-price inflation in London. I do not share his opinion.

PS: what did you mean when you say that manufacturing runs on debt, when its running properly?
In an economy that's running normally (not in crisis) there will be opportunities for investment by manufacturers which will return them more than the cost of borrowing. At any given level of interest rates and economic growth there will be a certain level of rationally justified debt taken on by manufacturers. Classically, interest rates will stabilise at a point where demand for such debt equals the capital available for investment. Banks are the main intermediaries in this.

[Jon_in_london]

Ah. Ok, point taken.

Interest rates.
Eurozone: 2.5%
The Bank of England: 3.75%

Although:

Swiss central bank: 0.75%.

[CapelDodger]

From Jon_in_london:
Although: Swiss central bank: 0.75%.
The Swiss franc has a reputation for stability, which means a lower interest rate can still attract funds. Also banking secrecy and polital/military neutrality make the country attractive. In fact there have been times when Swiss rates for foreign investment has been negative to discourage inward capital flows and keep the exchange rate comfortable for their manufacturers and drug-dealers, sorry that should be drug-companies.

[Jon_in_london]

I must confess my ingorance about all things economical.

Wish I knew more though, whole thing seems totally arcane to me.

[Cleopatra]

I think that just a reading of this thread is enough to help us understand why Europe faces so many problems and why it has failed so far to be transformed by EEC to EU...

The topic is about the Constitution and the Brits are talking about the monetary policy :) ( no pun intented)

I never miss the opportunity to express my surpise for the attitude of Great Britain ( GB from now on) towards the EU...

The reason I am saying this, is because you don't really need to be a historian ( let me advertise myself and my thesis now the way Malachi does it ;) ) to know that the Brits were the first in Europe who took the federal idea really seriously.

Of course, after the Ancient Greeks it was Switzerland and The Nederlands that created the first weak unions, even before the Americans, regardless if when we are talking about Federalism it's the Americans (Hamilton,Madison and Jay) that come into our minds..

Very few people in Europe actually know that a kind of parliamentary federalism was attempted to be applied in UK as early as the 19th ce. at first as an attempt to hold the collonies together. To me it doesn't matter why but what it matters is that the idea of following the american experience was introduced in UK...to others it was Germany but these are not serious things even to be discussed.

Of course from Lord Lothian to the the Federal Union of the 1938-40,many things changed but today we know for sure that it was the British Federal Union who inspired Altiero Spinelli( the father of EU) to write the Ventotene Manifesto and to lead the post-war campaign for a European federal union.

Other European countries approached federalism too but with other means(Saint Simon, Kant, Proudon De Toqueville to arrive in the famous Briand project in 1930...) but I wouldn't want people think that Malachi has stolen my account and posts as Cleopatra, so I'll leave the long account for now... ;)

So my question is what changed in the country that introduced european federalism?

In my humble opinion, GB after WWII, failed to see itself as an equal part of a Union... GB was used to lead and it had difficulties to see itself sitting on the same table with Portugal and Greece and having the poors deciding about its future...

I think that GB hasn't gotten over the colonial syndrom yet ... I might be wrong but I am open to discussion.

Of course I can understand and even respect that but what I have difficulties to absorb, is to see the PM of the GREAT Britain at the News, walking a step behind the American President. Not because the American President is unworthy but because GB worths better than that...

Come on guys... you were the first who introduced modern federalism to our old Europe, why you turn your backs to us now? :)

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Come on guys... you were the first who introduced modern federalism to our old Europe, why you turn your backs to us now? :)

I'm a little confused... are you actually suggesting that because we have urged a Federal system of government on one group of nations, that we must then automatically accept it from another group of nations?

Once right always right, regardless of the players and situation? Like a woman who marries one man that asked her, she should also be willing to marry any other man that asks her because marriage has been proven to be a good idea?

Is that really your argument?

[Cleopatra]

Of course not.

What I want to say is that History shows that GB was a federalist-friendly country for quite a long period in its History... in fact the period was so long that today we have difficulties in understanding its euroscepticism...it's like that it doesn't make sense... other sense that psychological of course...

Sorry for using the term psychological but I can't find another appropriate one to describe the lack of common sense ( in a good way).

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Of course not.

What I want to say is that History shows that GB was a federalist-friendly country for quite a long period in its History... in fact the period was so long that today we have difficulties in understanding its euroscepticism...it's like that it doesn't make sense... other sense that psychological of course...

Sorry for using the term psychological but I can't find another appropriate one to describe the lack of common sense ( in a good way).

To some extent, I think you may be misunderstanding our reluctance. It's not that we're against the concept of Federalism as such - some are, but that is only part of it.

No, I'm afraid it's more that we're against Federalism with Europe.

To use my analogy again, it's not that we're against marriage, it's that we're against marrying the particular people who are asking us.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


No, I'm afraid it's more that we're against Federalism with Europe.


You see? With Europe! As if you belong to Africa...

History has a different opinion but it's not this that matters now, the question is

what do you plan to do about this? Do you agree with CapelDodger and me that UK should leave the EU?

Ok. You don't approve it, I respect that.

Why do you block it and you do nothing but creating problems?

BTW and just out of curiosity. Since you are not against the idea of "marriage" who is the lucky one you wish to get married to? :)

[Giz]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You see? With Europe! As if you belong to Africa...

History has a different opinion but it's not this that matters now, the question is

what do you plan to do about this? Do you agree with CapelDodger and me that UK should leave the EU?

Ok. You don't approve it, I respect that.

Why do you block it and you do nothing but creating problems?

BTW and just out of curiosity. Since you are not against the idea of "marriage" who is the lucky one you wish to get married to? :)

A lot of the problems (us) Brits have with closer European integration is that the other countries (France, Germany, Spain etc) have very different democratic traditions (& rather short traditions at that - perhaps Brussells has a hint of arbitrary authority), legal codes etc. If we were talking about closer ties with Australia, Canada, or the States then our shared democratic & legal heritage would probably let us overlook their funny accents!

Also, worryingly, lot of the people who like the EU seem to defend it's abitrary (my word of the day) exercise of power because they are happy with it's policy at the moment. Some of us don't think that just because you might be able to get slightly more favourable interest rates - at this point in time - that you should discard democracy as a "over rated practice".

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You see? With Europe! As if you belong to Africa...

We don't "belong" to anybody. I talk of Europe as separate from the UK because it is.

Story told to me as true : About a hundred years or so ago there was once a huge fogbank in the English channel. Lasted days, and all sorts of shipping was stuck in port. The headline in the Times newspaper?

"Fog in the Channel - Europe isolated!"

I don't know if this really happened, but I can easily imagine that it could.

History has a different opinion but it's not this that matters now, the question is

what do you plan to do about this? Do you agree with CapelDodger and me that UK should leave the EU?

If the EU is set on becoming the United States of Eurpoe, which it certainly seems to be, then my answer is yes. The UK should withdraw from the EU completely.

Ok. You don't approve it, I respect that.

Why do you block it and you do nothing but creating problems?

The last few governments have more or less tried to tread a path between staying in Europe because of all the free trade and stuff, and keeping our own national identity because it would get them thrown out of office to give it away.

BTW and just out of curiosity. Since you are not against the idea of "marriage" who is the lucky one you wish to get married to? :)

I'm for marriage in a general sense but it's not an option for me, alas.

[CapelDodger]

Sorry about a British concentration on monetary issues, but I was just addressing some previously raised points. Also the Euro is the dominant European issue here just now.

Why the majority British suspicion of Europe? One opinion I've heard repeatedly is that "the Germans will end up running us just like they've always wanted". What this means - Germans probably own more British manufacturing than the British do, and even under Thatcher interest rates were explicitly set in relation to German rates - I don't know, and nor do the people who parrot the statement, I find. The truth is that most Brits are woefully ignorant about Europe, economics and - well, anything important, really. And there is a national "chip on the shoulder" that is quite common in nations that have once been dominant powers. Most of the press - particularly the foreign-owned papers - are ferociously anti-European and pro-sovereignty (except where the US is concerned) and have no hesitation in telling lies. One of the main political parties - the Tories - is also fanatically anti-European (with some exceptions who are now side-lined) and equally unconcerned about lying. Just as some Americans cannot see any trans-national organisation or agreement - the UN, the International Criminal Court, Kyoto and so on - as anything other than a conspiracy against the US, so a lot of Brits cannot see the EU as anything other than a conspiracy against the UK. The fact that many federalist ideas originated in Britain means nothing to most people because they know nothing about history at all, and what they think they know ain't so.

As Cleopatra suggests, I'm not against Britain leaving the EU, but only so that the resulting economic disaster concentrates minds and educates people in a direct way. (I write this as someone who put his liquid savings into Euros two years ago when sterling was ludicrously over-valued, and I've already had the benefit of a well-paid career. I could also, at a stretch, feed myself.) I'm one who favours a European federation not so much of nation-states as of regions and the great cities, and Britain outside the EU would be much more regionally fractured than Britain inside it. And with Britain outside, federalism would have a better chance of progress within the EU - which Britain would have to rejoin at some point.

From Giz:
A lot of the problems (us) Brits have with closer European integration is that the other countries (France, Germany, Spain etc) have very different democratic traditions (& rather short traditions at that - perhaps Brussells has a hint of arbitrary authority), legal codes etc. If we were talking about closer ties with Australia, Canada, or the States then our shared democratic & legal heritage would probably let us overlook their funny accents
At least that's the opinion of someone educated, but Britain is still run as a constitutional monarchy, for crying out loud. The Prime Minister acts under the authority of the Crown. Until a few years ago the second house of Parliament was predominantly hereditary!
And the American legal and democratic heritage is a thing of unique strangeness which I want no part of. I'm in favour of making more of the Commonwealth - an opportunity that has been squandered in the last half-century - but that's not really on offer in the near future.

[Giz]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


From Giz:

At least that's the opinion of someone educated, but Britain is still run as a constitutional monarchy, for crying out loud. The Prime Minister acts under the authority of the Crown. Until a few years ago the second house of Parliament was predominantly hereditary!
And the American legal and democratic heritage is a thing of unique strangeness which I want no part of. I'm in favour of making more of the Commonwealth - an opportunity that has been squandered in the last half-century - but that's not really on offer in the near future.

Who said I was educated! Comprehensive boy, me.

I think my position would be more along the lines of:

1) If our home isn't in order (ie monarchy) then why cant we sort it out rather than assuming that entwining ourselves in a massively beaurocratic supranational entity is the answer. Heck, I haven't heard any pro Euro's saying that closer integration would get rid of our royals - might even tempt me!

2) What happenned to the free trade block we thought we were joining? Do we need "harmonisation"? Does anyone? Correct me if i'm wrong but I cant see Germany going and invading anyone so why do we need the political side? Isn't it raising tensions and being actually counterproductive! Wouldn't the smart move be to have a free market/free movement of labour for a generation or so and see if a real european demos developes?

3) The French are for the EU. Just say "non".

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Why the majority British suspicion of Europe? One opinion I've heard repeatedly is that "the Germans will end up running us just like they've always wanted".

And what is wrong with that?
:D
Zee