Jump to content

Britian Says no to EU Plan


Recommended Posts

Stranded Shipscook

We will see which is the cat and which is the cat's tail later. Good thing the EU still considers letting someone go... so far they can do that, but it might be the case soon that countries will let the EU go... or it will cease to exist altogether.

 

To remain with the cat metaphor, its very difficult to make dogs, cats and mice sit peacefully in the same cage and expect them to work on something common.

Good observation, its very hard to find common grounds, but somehow the EU has managed it over the years, which alone is a justification for its existence. What other possibilities where there ?

 

It would be interesting to hear first hand from a Hungarian how he see the EU and its past benefits for Hungary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 298
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stranded Shipscook

    75

  • Markham

    53

  • UZI

    40

  • Alan S

    17

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Behind all this, there is STILL the "banking crisis".   The European banks (excluding the UK ones) need to raise collateral of between 3.5 and 5 TRILLION (Euros) just to stay solvent, and that is a

As a Brit I am watching what has happened over the last days with concern, and reading the comments here with some amusement. Someone likened the British attitude to a potential passenger of the Titan

You mean give up sovereignty to a country with 50 different sets of laws, with 2 main parties that are usually diametrically opposed on most issues and is in huge debt without a clear strategy for pay

Posted Images

Stranded Shipscook

Au contraire, it is the EU17 that were rebuffed in their attempt to "dictate" fiscal policy to the UK.

err, isn't that how democracy works ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Typical POMs

They're not part of the 17 countries that make up the EU but want to dictate how it should run! "

 

Just typical for non Brits to not know that Britain is part of the EU (European Union) as opposed to not being a member of the EURO which is the currency.

 

Brits do not want to dictate how its run, they want to ensure that if they are to bail it out that there are checks and balances that will safe guard the investment. Why? because over 640Billion is invested into the currency through industry and this cannot be allowed to fail. bearing in mind that miss management of the entry requirements into a common currency and the continued policy of pretending there was never going to be problems for sovereign debts( 220 billion owned by UK Financial institutions on the promise the debts are good!)

 

The EU is important to Britain, 40% of its exports go to a market next door so its cheaper to access. The currency has become important due to debts held in the currency.

 

EU & EURO are two different things one is a political and economic club the other is a currency.

Edited by spooks
Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

err, isn't that how democracy works ?

 

Have you heard of "Tyranny of the majority"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stranded Shipscook

Have you heard of "Tyranny of the majority"?

Or minority, LOL

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Euro was a badly conceived idea that was invented by a committee, implemented by a committee and continues to be managed by a committee. IMO a group of independent countries sharing a common currency is like being 'partly pregnant', without a single ruling body that actually rules financially you can't just 'share' a currency without huge problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stranded Shipscook

The Euro was a badly conceived idea that was invented by a committee, implemented by a committee and continues to be managed by a committee. IMO a group of independent countries sharing a common currency is like being 'partly pregnant', without a single ruling body that actually rules financially you can't just 'share' a currency without huge problems.

That's very very simple said. Just like saying, that 2 guys had the idea in the sixties. It was way more difficult.

 

In due fairness, its been created over many years of very complicated processes taking in consideration a lot of input of all central banks, even the ones which did not participate. I think it was more or less created in 1979 with the EMS (European monetary system, then called ECU, a pure accounting currency) in order to stabilize exchange rates and eventually fix them.

(The other non- participant in this Euro system has fixed exchange rates though)

 

To call the European Central Bank a committee is actually a very funny idea. I think i adapt that in my lingo now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Typical POMs

They're not part of the 17 countries that make up the EU but want to dictate how it should run! "

 

Just typical for non Brits to not know that Britain is part of the EU (European Union) as opposed to not being a member of the EURO which is the currency.

 

Brits do not want to dictate how its run, they want to ensure that if they are to bail it out that there are checks and balances that will safe guard the investment. Why? because over 640Billion is invested into the currency through industry and this cannot be allowed to fail. bearing in mind that miss management of the entry requirements into a common currency and the continued policy of pretending there was never going to be problems for sovereign debts( 220 billion owned by UK Financial institutions on the promise the debts are good!)

 

The EU is important to Britain, 40% of its exports go to a market next door so its cheaper to access. The currency has become important due to debts held in the currency.

 

EU & EURO are two different things one is a political and economic club the other is a currency.

 

Point taken. Thanks for the clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Brit I am watching what has happened over the last days with concern, and reading the comments here with some amusement. Someone likened the British attitude to a potential passenger of the Titanic deciding not to board because their safety recommendations were being ignored. I think there is some truth in that. Behind all of this lies a French wish to see the UK removed from the EU. They never really wanted us involved in the first place and have been maneuvering to ensure their own interests are dominent ever since. The request that the UK made, to protect the financial services industries, was both modest and sensible. It was in the interests of the whole of the EU, as without it those services would quickly migrate elsewhere. Indeed, I can see this ending up as a French own goal, for if the other EU countries impose a financial transaction tax, and the UK doesn't, I can imagine that much business will shift to the UK as a result. The French refusal to accept the British proposal was wholly political, but is not being presented that way.

 

The agreement itself seems to be all piss and wind. It is shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. Ensuring it never happens again is a secondary issue. What is needed is to ensure that countries act now to ensure they don't default on their sovereign debt. Greece is going to. They will be out of the Euro in a year, with enormous pain to the people there. If you have money in Greece, get it out now. If Italy follows, and it might, the Euro won't survive. If that happens everyone in the world gets burned, those in the Euro worst of all, including France and Germany. The UK, by comparison, although hurt, would not do so badly. Unless real action is taken, and the political maneuvering ceases, nothing will stop this scenario. The Germans in particular seem to be living in a state of denial, as though just talking about financial discipline is enough.

 

So the idea that the UK has somehow been difficult, and is seeking to scupper a Franco/German master plan, is far from the truth. We have always seen the weakness of the whole concept of the Euro. Trying to homogenise such widely different economies and cultures was never going to work. We need the safety valve of exchange rates to iron out the variables. We believe in a Europe in which people, goods and services can move without restriction, where we co-operate on defence and foreign policy. However, you cannot change climate, geography or culture so you try to force it at your peril.

 

I don't see this as an irresponsible act by the UK, but I do see it as a foolish act by the EU. I remain very concerned about what will happen if the Euro fails and as a consequence am actively reviewing where to keep my investments, to ensure they don't disappear. The very fact that someone like me has lost confidence ought to be sufficient for the EU leadership to have concerns. Whether they react, time alone will tell.

 

This is only the start of a very messy phase. The UK will resist, with legal force if necessary, any attempt to use EU institutions as vehicles to carry through agreements which only affect a group within the EU. That group might be everyone minus 1, but the institutions can only perform for the EU, and not for a "Euro group". The use of the commission, or the court, will not be allowed. This might just force the "Euro group" back to the negotiating table.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
sheffieldmel

cameron keeps saying he is acting in the best interest of the UK that's bullshit he is looking after the people who finance his party the bankers who got us in this mess in the first place. the weirdest part about it is that the most pro European party in the UK the liberals are the ones helping him to get us kicked out

Link to post
Share on other sites

The major British political parties could have taken us into the Euro but did not , why? because the issues transcends domestic politics. Cameron is running with the ball now and is entirely consistent with what has been a previous unofficial all party avoidance on Britain going down the Euro route, whilst still being Members of the Euro club, and one of the few members who gives more than they take.

Edited by spooks
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sheffieldmel

Im not saying we should be in the euro just have agreed to the part about regulating the banks, had the bbc on this morning and some liberal mp's are sounding a bit pissed off so the next few days could be interesting Milliband is already stirring it saying they should go to labour.

P.S sorry if i sound a bit grumpy this morning but i am in the uk its -4 degrees and the pubs don't open for another 4 hours

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

-4c i will add that tidbit for the asawa as I open the freezer door just part of the acclimitization process. :tinkerbell:

 

at least u can get ur beers in pints :dance:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Behind all this, there is STILL the "banking crisis".

 

The European banks (excluding the UK ones) need to raise collateral of between 3.5 and 5 TRILLION (Euros) just to stay solvent, and that is a lot of money by anyones reckoning.

They dont have the ssets required to do so, between all of them, so the central banks / governments will have to step in, or else the Euro will collapse.

 

If we had stayed in the "club" we would have had to pour in more money to, what is obviously, a bottomless pit just to support something (the Euro) that we dont use and which would have litttle or no benefit to the UK.

 

Given that the derivatives market is roughly 10 times the value of economic output (figures for 2006 = world economic output- $474T: Deriv- $4737T) to support the Euro will take far more than the central banks can muster.

 

Britain has always dealt internationally, and mainly with countries outside of Europe. We still do so, and way under half of our business is with Europe.

That is much different from many European countries that have massive -inter-Europe trade but little from outside.

 

For us, the EU is an expensive organisation that offers few benefits, limits our ability to do business, and costs us a fortune.

 

If this is a step towards us leaving, then the sooner the better.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Britain has always dealt internationally, and mainly with countries outside of Europe. We still do so, and way under half of our business is with Europe.

If this is a step towards us leaving, then the sooner the better."

 

Yes 40% is a figure under half but it is way more than a statistic. What you are proposing is to tell 40 out of 100 Brits that their livelihoods mean nothing to you !! What you do not know is how much of that 40% is a contributor to net gain for uk, The costs of dealing with the other 60% could be way higher etc. just logistics and distance would suggest that!

 

'Little Englander' issues have always had their appeal

 

I do not have the answers, but I do not see a viable solution being to turn away, too many will lose too much. Otherwise I think such a decision would already have been made if it was so easy and without ramifications.

 

Not supporting the Euro currency is way different to not having access to a single market which by anyone's definition is still significant at 40%

Edited by spooks
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...