Euro Coins

[DaveG38 405]

Doesn't look like I'll have to start collecting Euro coins anytime soon! The UK looks further away from Europe than ever, and a million miles from joining the Euro.

[Rob 3,152]

Doesn't look like I'll have to start collecting Euro coins anytime soon! The UK looks further away from Europe than ever, and a million miles from joining the Euro.

An appropriate time to repeat that memorable newspaper headline "Fog In Channel, Europe Isolated". Which pretty much sums up the problem. European politicians are incapable of recognising that they are responsible for the mess and will blame anything or anyone but themselves. By extension, the solution is equally impossible for them to contemplate.

Euro coins could become very rare indeed if they need to melt them all to provide the raw material for the replacement currencies.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Rob

[Peter 615]

Doesn't look like I'll have to start collecting Euro coins anytime soon! The UK looks further away from Europe than ever, and a million miles from joining the Euro.

An appropriate time to repeat that memorable newspaper headline "Fog In Channel, Europe Isolated". Which pretty much sums up the problem. European politicians are incapable of recognising that they are responsible for the mess and will blame anything or anyone but themselves. By extension, the solution is equally impossible for them to contemplate.

Euro coins could become very rare indeed if they need to melt them all to provide the raw material for the replacement currencies.

I've still got my holiday Franc's,Peseta's,Escudo's & Dracma.

I fondly remember filling the wine rack in the Gite and then experimenting over the next 2 weeks over which one's I enjoyed but being so bladdered I couldn't rememember.It was 2 weeks of ground hog day

[davidrj 194]

I fondly remember filling the wine rack in the Gite and then experimenting over the next 2 weeks over which one's I enjoyed but being so bladdered I couldn't rememember.It was 2 weeks of ground hog day

I vaguely remember a similar situation with a bar stocked with lots of different single malts!

On a serious note Britain needs to make its mind up, Join the club and play with the rules everyone else has agreed to, or get out. Sitting on the touch line complaining that everyone is playing football when we want to play cricket is nonsense

David

Edited December 9, 2011 by davidrj

[Peckris 579]

I fondly remember filling the wine rack in the Gite and then experimenting over the next 2 weeks over which one's I enjoyed but being so bladdered I couldn't rememember.It was 2 weeks of ground hog day

I vaguely remember a similar situation with a bar stocked with lots of different single malts!

On a serious note Britain needs to make its mind up, Join the club and play with the rules everyone else has agreed to, or get out. Sitting on the touch line complaining that everyone is playing football when we want to play cricket is nonsense

David

Agreed. The French have got it right when they complain that Britain is in Europe for "the sunny days and what we can get out of it, but the first hint of rain and we're off". (That's not to say I think we should ever have joined the Euro, but we are members of the EC and we should be paying our sub along with everyone else. Cameron thinks he's Thatcher. He's not.)

[DaveG38 405]

Best quote I've heard about the crisis (can't remember who it was) when asked about Britain being isolated, the interviewee commented 'What, isolated like the guy who missed the Titanic's maiden voyage?'

From my perspective, the problem with the current situation is that, as Menzies Campbell commented, it takes two to negotiate and when you see Merkel saying, "We had to get some sort of agreement and we couldn't make compromises," it's pretty clear to me that the French and Germans had no intention of negotiating anything. In that situation, there was no prospect of any deal. It was a case of sit down and do as you are told or get up on your hind legs and say 'no', 'non' or 'nien'. Sadly it was the latter, but that's how things go sometimes.

As a result, what they have is a convenient scapegoat in the UK. However, I have the feeling that it's still not going to be easy for them and I wouldn't put money on the Euro surviving with its current 17 + 9 countries for very long. How long will all the people of those states that are having to go through the real pain of austerity put up with being dictated to by others? For Greece, its decades and I don't see that happening. Nor for Portugal and once one leaves, the others will follow. Eventually, there will only be a core of states with the Euro and the rest will I expect return to their own currencies and will then prosper as in the past.

In any case, what's wrong with managing our own financial affairs as opposed to having to submit budget proposals to an unelected bunch in Brussels, and to go cap in hand to be told whether you can afford a penny for the loo or not? Because this is what the sheep in Europe, including all those others who are not in the Euro have signed up for. Somehow, I don't think they realise what they have let themselves in for and will wake up one morning to the awful reality, particularly if the Euro goes completely belly up. Interesting times ahead I think.

[DaveG38 405]

I fondly remember filling the wine rack in the Gite and then experimenting over the next 2 weeks over which one's I enjoyed but being so bladdered I couldn't rememember.It was 2 weeks of ground hog day

I vaguely remember a similar situation with a bar stocked with lots of different single malts!

On a serious note Britain needs to make its mind up, Join the club and play with the rules everyone else has agreed to, or get out. Sitting on the touch line complaining that everyone is playing football when we want to play cricket is nonsense

David

I have no problem with the principle of this, but I do with the practical applications. It seems that the UK does slavishly follow the rules (of which there are far, far too many), but then finds itself at a disadvantage because other countries don't. Then there's the problem of trying to get real reform in the EU. Almost impossible because of the vested interests of some of the players - France and the CAP for example. Then there's corruption and the fact that the EU finances never get audited and signed off properly - doesn't give any confidence at all in this as an organisation. Then there is the desire of the EU to milk the UK for all it can get - witness the transaction tax, which, whatever you think about banks etc. is no more than a means of getting the UK to pay a large portion of the bill for the borrowing of the other members of the Eerozone. Also the coming changes to pension funds which are likely to drive the remaining final salary schemes to the wall, all in the name of EU rules.

Sorry for the rant, but sometimes I fail to see exactly what we get out of membership. Trade? Yes, but not that much when you consider the deficit with the EU was around £30billion per year in 2005. If we were not in the EU, I find it hard to see how they could stop trading with us, since it would be a case of nose cutting to spite the face. And if they did, there are some things that could be done to help - cancel the train contract with the Germnan company and award it to Bombardier for a start. Am I the only one whoc thinks that Britain is perfectly capable of standing on its own feet, repealing all the useless legislation from Brussels and becoming competitive again, selling into the wider world instead of worrying about the EU all the time?

Aaah. I feel better now!!!

Edited December 9, 2011 by DaveG38

[declanwmagee 122]

Can no-one see what is really going on here beyond the "brave Dave" theatrics?

All we've done is make it easier for the unelected to take over without a treaty change. If they have to invent a new subgrouping to go further towards fiscal union, then there's no need for tiresome ratifications by 26 different parliaments, or, god forbid, referenda. Remember the Irish ones? "We'll keep having referenda till you get it right!".

If Etonboy had said, "yes, OK, but I'll have to put it to Westminster first", the chances are the Danes, the Irish, maybe even the Dutch, would have said "Yes, us too", and that has the makings of a bureacrats nightmare like when the whole of Europe was staying up late waiting for Slovakia to ratify. So now he's just got out of the way of the train, called it a veto for domestic consumption, and left Sarkozy and Merkel going full steam ahead, carrying the other Eurozone countries behind them whether they like it or not. "You'd better follow us, you don't want to be another Greece."

Nobody want to be another Greece, but being another Iceland doesn't look too bad now the dust has settled. Iceland was told that they'd become the Cuba of the North, to which they replied "it's better then being the Haiti of the North!"

[Colin G. 147]

Aaah. I feel better now!!!

Well you have saved me some typing I totally agree with your stance, I would have loved to have seen the Germans or French if the boot had been on the other foot....they would not have given us a second thought. We keep being told we will be isolated, but if we are being isolated away from a pack with the lurgy that may not be a bad thing

I know it's a complex issue, but I for one can not stomach the money we pour down the drain in the name of Europe. Lots of people with their snouts in the trough it's no wonder they spend all there time trying to convince us it's where we need to be.

I too now feel a bit better

[DaveG38 405]

Can no-one see what is really going on here beyond the "brave Dave" theatrics?

All we've done is make it easier for the unelected to take over without a treaty change. If they have to invent a new subgrouping to go further towards fiscal union, then there's no need for tiresome ratifications by 26 different parliaments, or, god forbid, referenda. Remember the Irish ones? "We'll keep having referenda till you get it right!".

If Etonboy had said, "yes, OK, but I'll have to put it to Westminster first", the chances are the Danes, the Irish, maybe even the Dutch, would have said "Yes, us too", and that has the makings of a bureacrats nightmare like when the whole of Europe was staying up late waiting for Slovakia to ratify. So now he's just got out of the way of the train, called it a veto for domestic consumption, and left Sarkozy and Merkel going full steam ahead, carrying the other Eurozone countries behind them whether they like it or not. "You'd better follow us, you don't want to be another Greece."

Nobody want to be another Greece, but being another Iceland doesn't look too bad now the dust has settled. Iceland was told that they'd become the Cuba of the North, to which they replied "it's better then being the Haiti of the North!"

Declan,

Not sure I agree here, since there is no sign that any of these countries did anything other than fall into line behind the French and Germans as they were told to do. I can understand it for those in the Euro, since they are in the danger zone of the Euro meltdown, but not the Danes. I'm not sure I see what they get out of surrendering fiscal control when they have their own currency still.

[declanwmagee 122]

Declan,

Not sure I agree here, since there is no sign that any of these countries did anything other than fall into line behind the French and Germans as they were told to do. I can understand it for those in the Euro, since they are in the danger zone of the Euro meltdown, but not the Danes. I'm not sure I see what they get out of surrendering fiscal control when they have their own currency still.

You're probably right, Dave. I was thinking of the countries who had got referenda wrong in the past. You're certainly right to be questioning what we get from membership of this dodgy cabal. Far better to jump out before the train crash even if it means a rough landing. Broken ankle and a rolldown the embankment or certain death?

[Peckris 579]

Can we please separate out matters concerning the Euro (and its difficulties) from the Daily Mail / Murdoch-inspired mythology concerning Brussels, of which there is too much even here in this forum, and most of which is just urban myth (e.g. never forget just how much our disadvantaged areas get and have got back from Europe, and don't just look in a Colonel Blimpish way at the pot we put in). If Europe was really as it is painted by the tabloid press (who have interests elsewhere), do you really think for one moment that our politicians would have kept us in it for the past 30 years?

The future of the Euro does seem doomed, and I can't honestly blame the Germans and French for their stern unilateralism. Faced with the examples of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, it has been clear for a long time that trouble was brewing, but also don't forget that much of this trouble was caused by the international banking crisis. Europe didn't have a Gordon Brown to get them out of the mess we were largely got out of, albeit by creating a massive deficit (still better than a total banking-inspired economic meltdown which was the only alternative).

We were wise (Gordon again) to not join the Euro, and we are wise to keep our powder dry now, even though Cameron is a two-faced rat of the first order. But we should not leave Europe. If we did we would face two alternatives : sink on our own two feet, or become completely in thrall to the USA.

Declan, your instincts are right. We put far too much trust in politicians, mostly because we lack the competence and expertise to run national affairs. Better to opt out as much as possible, as you have done. We cannot escape death or the taxman, but we can make it harder for the latter.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Peckris

[DaveG38 405]

Can we please separate out matters concerning the Euro (and its difficulties) from the Daily Mail / Murdoch-inspired mythology concerning Brussels, of which there is too much even here in this forum, and most of which is just urban myth (e.g. never forget just how much our disadvantaged areas get and have got back from Europe, and don't just look in a Colonel Blimpish way at the pot we put in). If Europe was really as it is painted by the tabloid press (who have interests elsewhere), do you really think for one moment that our politicians would have kept us in it for the past 30 years?

The future of the Euro does seem doomed, and I can't honestly blame the Germans and French for their stern unilateralism. Faced with the examples of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, it has been clear for a long time that trouble was brewing, but also don't forget that much of this trouble was caused by the international banking crisis. Europe didn't have a Gordon Brown to get them out of the mess we were largely got out of, albeit by creating a massive deficit (still better than a total banking-inspired economic meltdown which was the only alternative).

We were wise (Gordon again) to not join the Euro, and we are wise to keep our powder dry now, even though Cameron is a two-faced rat of the first order. But we should not leave Europe. If we did we would face two alternatives : sink on our own two feet, or become completely in thrall to the USA.

Declan, your instincts are right. We put far too much trust in politicians, mostly because we lack the competence and expertise to run national affairs. Better to opt out as much as possible, as you have done. We cannot escape death or the taxman, but we can make it harder for the latter.

I'm not sure I agree that the impact of Brussels is just an urban myth, whipped up by the media. The amount of legislation that pours out is phenomenal and does have a very direct impact on the UK and its businesses. As for the budget audit fiasco every year, again that's not a myth, so I'm not very kindly disposed towards the EU. Perhaps the thing I object to most is the simple straightforward loss of sovereignty and the obvious fact that the EU is heading inexorably towards statehood. The latter is not something I would want the UK to subscribe to. The main reason is that the culture and political instincts of the UK and many of the European countries are totally different, which tends to mean that they can collectively impose their will upon us, whether we like it or not.

As for what we get from the EU, I would like to see the 'real' figures that describe our relationship. Too many numbers that are questionable or are 'doctored' get bandied about, so I would like to a real dispassionate balance sheet before I make a judgment. However, the figures for the balance of trade deficit are official ones for 2005, and that does show quite a gap. When it comes to the French and Germans then I agree that they are probably exasperated with the wrecking of the Euro that Greece etc. have landed on them. However, the UK isn't in the Euro, so I really don't see any big deal in not being involved in whatever treaty the 26 decide to put in place. There will be a lot of time and trouble put in to writing this new treaty, which still doesn't address or solve the debt problem, and it may well be that we have better things to do whilst the eurozone try to put its house in order. I'm not putting money on a happy outcome to this for the Eurozone.

In the case of David Cameron, I don't actually see that he had much option, faced with a demand to sign up or else with precious little negotiation from the Frence/Germans, and the problems with the eurosceptic side of his party on the other hand. Looked like catch22 to me. Heads he loses, tails they win!

I also don't agree that the UK couldn't stand on its own two feet. I see this as the defeatist argument that can't countenance the idea that we have done it before and can do it again, and don't need the umbrella of the EU as some sort of protection.

[Peckris 579]

Can we please separate out matters concerning the Euro (and its difficulties) from the Daily Mail / Murdoch-inspired mythology concerning Brussels, of which there is too much even here in this forum, and most of which is just urban myth (e.g. never forget just how much our disadvantaged areas get and have got back from Europe, and don't just look in a Colonel Blimpish way at the pot we put in). If Europe was really as it is painted by the tabloid press (who have interests elsewhere), do you really think for one moment that our politicians would have kept us in it for the past 30 years?

The future of the Euro does seem doomed, and I can't honestly blame the Germans and French for their stern unilateralism. Faced with the examples of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, it has been clear for a long time that trouble was brewing, but also don't forget that much of this trouble was caused by the international banking crisis. Europe didn't have a Gordon Brown to get them out of the mess we were largely got out of, albeit by creating a massive deficit (still better than a total banking-inspired economic meltdown which was the only alternative).

We were wise (Gordon again) to not join the Euro, and we are wise to keep our powder dry now, even though Cameron is a two-faced rat of the first order. But we should not leave Europe. If we did we would face two alternatives : sink on our own two feet, or become completely in thrall to the USA.

Declan, your instincts are right. We put far too much trust in politicians, mostly because we lack the competence and expertise to run national affairs. Better to opt out as much as possible, as you have done. We cannot escape death or the taxman, but we can make it harder for the latter.

I'm not sure I agree that the impact of Brussels is just an urban myth, whipped up by the media. The amount of legislation that pours out is phenomenal and does have a very direct impact on the UK and its businesses. As for the budget audit fiasco every year, again that's not a myth, so I'm not very kindly disposed towards the EU. Perhaps the thing I object to most is the simple straightforward loss of sovereignty and the obvious fact that the EU is heading inexorably towards statehood. The latter is not something I would want the UK to subscribe to. The main reason is that the culture and political instincts of the UK and many of the European countries are totally different, which tends to mean that they can collectively impose their will upon us, whether we like it or not.

As for what we get from the EU, I would like to see the 'real' figures that describe our relationship. Too many numbers that are questionable or are 'doctored' get bandied about, so I would like to a real dispassionate balance sheet before I make a judgment. However, the figures for the balance of trade deficit are official ones for 2005, and that does show quite a gap. When it comes to the French and Germans then I agree that they are probably exasperated with the wrecking of the Euro that Greece etc. have landed on them. However, the UK isn't in the Euro, so I really don't see any big deal in not being involved in whatever treaty the 26 decide to put in place. There will be a lot of time and trouble put in to writing this new treaty, which still doesn't address or solve the debt problem, and it may well be that we have better things to do whilst the eurozone try to put its house in order. I'm not putting money on a happy outcome to this for the Eurozone.

In the case of David Cameron, I don't actually see that he had much option, faced with a demand to sign up or else with precious little negotiation from the Frence/Germans, and the problems with the eurosceptic side of his party on the other hand. Looked like catch22 to me. Heads he loses, tails they win!

I also don't agree that the UK couldn't stand on its own two feet. I see this as the defeatist argument that can't countenance the idea that we have done it before and can do it again, and don't need the umbrella of the EU as some sort of protection.

First, what 'collective will' do you speak of? You're telling me that the Irish, the French, the Germans, the Poles, the Dutch, and soon the Turks, would suddenly find a common interest, a collective identity, that would result in such an imposition? We actually have more in common with some European countries than they do with each other.

Second - yes I agree with that. His 'two-faced rattiness' I was referring to, is in relation to other matters.

Third, it's easy to answer that : because we haven't since WW2, since we lost a - to my generation - unlamented Empire. We are intricately involved in Europe now, as was the dream of all those post-WW2 visionaries who resolved that there should never again be another European war. Trade is the biggest factor of course, but there is also our ability and resolve to send combined forces into places like Kossovo (though Iraq wasn't anyone's finest hour it has to be admitted). We simply cannot stand alone now. We would be in America's pocket (would have to be, in fact); we have no manufacturing base any more; we only have service industries and those rely on trading partners to flourish. We need the European Community, even if we don't need the Euro.

[DaveG38 405]

Can we please separate out matters concerning the Euro (and its difficulties) from the Daily Mail / Murdoch-inspired mythology concerning Brussels, of which there is too much even here in this forum, and most of which is just urban myth (e.g. never forget just how much our disadvantaged areas get and have got back from Europe, and don't just look in a Colonel Blimpish way at the pot we put in). If Europe was really as it is painted by the tabloid press (who have interests elsewhere), do you really think for one moment that our politicians would have kept us in it for the past 30 years?

The future of the Euro does seem doomed, and I can't honestly blame the Germans and French for their stern unilateralism. Faced with the examples of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, it has been clear for a long time that trouble was brewing, but also don't forget that much of this trouble was caused by the international banking crisis. Europe didn't have a Gordon Brown to get them out of the mess we were largely got out of, albeit by creating a massive deficit (still better than a total banking-inspired economic meltdown which was the only alternative).

We were wise (Gordon again) to not join the Euro, and we are wise to keep our powder dry now, even though Cameron is a two-faced rat of the first order. But we should not leave Europe. If we did we would face two alternatives : sink on our own two feet, or become completely in thrall to the USA.

Declan, your instincts are right. We put far too much trust in politicians, mostly because we lack the competence and expertise to run national affairs. Better to opt out as much as possible, as you have done. We cannot escape death or the taxman, but we can make it harder for the latter.

I'm not sure I agree that the impact of Brussels is just an urban myth, whipped up by the media. The amount of legislation that pours out is phenomenal and does have a very direct impact on the UK and its businesses. As for the budget audit fiasco every year, again that's not a myth, so I'm not very kindly disposed towards the EU. Perhaps the thing I object to most is the simple straightforward loss of sovereignty and the obvious fact that the EU is heading inexorably towards statehood. The latter is not something I would want the UK to subscribe to. The main reason is that the culture and political instincts of the UK and many of the European countries are totally different, which tends to mean that they can collectively impose their will upon us, whether we like it or not.

As for what we get from the EU, I would like to see the 'real' figures that describe our relationship. Too many numbers that are questionable or are 'doctored' get bandied about, so I would like to a real dispassionate balance sheet before I make a judgment. However, the figures for the balance of trade deficit are official ones for 2005, and that does show quite a gap. When it comes to the French and Germans then I agree that they are probably exasperated with the wrecking of the Euro that Greece etc. have landed on them. However, the UK isn't in the Euro, so I really don't see any big deal in not being involved in whatever treaty the 26 decide to put in place. There will be a lot of time and trouble put in to writing this new treaty, which still doesn't address or solve the debt problem, and it may well be that we have better things to do whilst the eurozone try to put its house in order. I'm not putting money on a happy outcome to this for the Eurozone.

In the case of David Cameron, I don't actually see that he had much option, faced with a demand to sign up or else with precious little negotiation from the Frence/Germans, and the problems with the eurosceptic side of his party on the other hand. Looked like catch22 to me. Heads he loses, tails they win!

I also don't agree that the UK couldn't stand on its own two feet. I see this as the defeatist argument that can't countenance the idea that we have done it before and can do it again, and don't need the umbrella of the EU as some sort of protection.

First, what 'collective will' do you speak of? You're telling me that the Irish, the French, the Germans, the Poles, the Dutch, and soon the Turks, would suddenly find a common interest, a collective identity, that would result in such an imposition? We actually have more in common with some European countries than they do with each other.

Second - yes I agree with that. His 'two-faced rattiness' I was referring to, is in relation to other matters.

Third, it's easy to answer that : because we haven't since WW2, since we lost a - to my generation - unlamented Empire. We are intricately involved in Europe now, as was the dream of all those post-WW2 visionaries who resolved that there should never again be another European war. Trade is the biggest factor of course, but there is also our ability and resolve to send combined forces into places like Kossovo (though Iraq wasn't anyone's finest hour it has to be admitted). We simply cannot stand alone now. We would be in America's pocket (would have to be, in fact); we have no manufacturing base any more; we only have service industries and those rely on trading partners to flourish. We need the European Community, even if we don't need the Euro.

Certainly, we have much in common with many European countries, but the ideals and politics of many of them are very different from the UK and with QMV they are able to vote in many things which are to Britains's disadvantage - the proposed financial transaction tax is a good example. Perhaps equally likely they are willing to block those things that they are happy to see continue, but which we see as fundamentally flawed - the CAP is a classic example.

The UK economy is the 7th largest in the world and so seems to me to be perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet, with or without Europe. There is also no chance that the EU would introduce some kind of trade sanctions as that would damage them more than it would us, to the tune of around £30 billion a year. That's a high price for them to pay for their pride, so I don't see this as a likely response. I actually see Britain doing extremely well if freed from the insidious tentacles of the EU and able to set its own finanacial policies and practices - indeed the only issue I see is that the EU could get extremely pi**ed at us if we became successful. In short, the countries of the EU still need the UK, however much they may think they don't. I predict that once the dust has settled that things will soon get back to normal. Unless of course, the Euro starts to fail and I still see that as possible.

[Peter 615]

In? Out? or sabotage.

Catch 22 for David I fear.

What ever decision is made the Country must unite to prosper....& Oh...if there is a choice please buy British.

[Rob 3,152]

All that has been achieved this week is yet another agreement that there is a problem and that something needs to be done about it. New treaty? With binding resolutions? With sanctions? Who is going to bind anyone in the cosy club that is Europe. They have had treaties coming out if their ears over the years, which, if the will was there, provided an ample framework for an orderly return to a relatively stable economy. Do you remember the one that went like this? No one shall run a budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP. Funnily enough, one year the French stuck two fingers up to this because it was inconvenient. Funnily enough, they did the same the following year, and the next. Why? Because there were clearly extenuating circumstances which meant the political cost of balancing budgets would have been too great. So if the punishment at the time was to tell the French minister "You're a naughty boy", presumably this will be elevated under the new treaty to "You're a very naughty boy". It's crap. France hasn't balanced its books for over three decades. For those that need reminding, it's called printing money you don't have in order to bolster the economy, or in new speak - Quantitative Easing.

The fundamental problem of the eurozone and the rest of the western world is that we consume more than we produce and simply don't pay our way. The fundamental problem is debt of an unmanageable proportion and economies that are too uncompetitive to trade their way out of it. Southern European countries having to borrow at above inflation rates means that the time honoured tradition of allowing your debts to become worthless through inflation of a long period of time isn't going to work. The debts can only increase. Italy was borrowing today at 6.40% compared to just over 2 for Britain and Germany. I can't confirm if Wikipedia figures are accurate, but the quoted values for expenditure and revenues for the EU are approx. 50% and 44% respectively. On the assumption they are true, I suggest they have a problem.

When the eurozone sets up its rescue fund, who is going to fill the coffers? Everybody is allegedly in too much debt. Under lax EU accounting controls, probably the Greeks using all the EU funds which have been wasted in the country and are now presumably secreted away in a bank vault because the accounts say they should be there. Year on year the accounts can't be signed off because the amounts spent and accounted for can't be audited satisfactorily. If you rock the boat and publicly raise the issue of fraud you are summarily dismissed. The whole thing is a (bad) joke and is now dangerously out of control held together only by a brown adhesive, the smell of which is quite distinctive. The Euro can not survive in its present form.

We should be quite resolute in rejecting any taxes on financial transactions. The Europeans may not like it, but now it is our turn to say it isn't in our interest just as every other country has done when they feel so disposed. This country would pay a major share of the tax to plug the deficit gaps in Europe's coffers. That is not the way to enforce financial discipline because it equates to yet another free lunch for the spendthrift countries. It is popular because everyone likes to attack the greedy bankers, but the problems of the EU do not stem from banks lending sub-prime personal mortgages recklessly, rather they lent far greater sums of money to insolvent and therefore sub-prime countries without the means to trade their way out of indebtedness on the back of an implicit guarantee that the EU was indestructable with Germany's financial backing. The politicians want to tax the banks that lent money to the countries which those same politicians represent in order that they may continue their cosseted lifestyles at the expense of tax payers.

I actually think that we would not be so badly off outside the EU. Nobody would be forced to declare war on any other country. Trade would still continue across the Channel just as it does with the rest of the world. The yearly net payments to Brussels could cease. We could set our laws to benefit our economy rather than have them set as part of the obigatory tit for tat arguments whereby European laws are mostly a collage of points, each negotiated by a member state in order that everyone can say they won. Overly complicated and every point guaranteed to p*** off at least one or two of the 27. Therein lies a fundamental weakness of Europe. Every country still fights for its own benefits. Nobody talks about communal benefits. For the EU to succeed it would require the abolition of individual countries, a proposition which no politician would be able to put to the electorate. Can anyone imagine a former Frenchman standing up and claiming that the citizens of the areas formerly known as the countries of Germany and the United Kingdom were being short changed to the benefit of the area formerly known as France - or vice versa. Or a similar situation involving Spaniards and the Portuguese. All of which assumes that politicians have voted to make themselves obsolete in the first place - fat chance.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Rob

[Chingford 166]

All that has been achieved this week is yet another agreement that there is a problem and that something needs to be done about it. New treaty? With binding resolutions? With sanctions? Who is going to bind anyone in the cosy club that is Europe. They have had treaties coming out if their ears over the years, which, if the will was there, provided an ample framework for an orderly return to a relatively stable economy. Do you remember the one that went like this? No one shall run a budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP. Funnily enough, one year the French stuck two fingers up to this because it was inconvenient. Funnily enough, they did the same the following year, and the next. Why? Because there were clearly extenuating circumstances which meant the political cost of balancing budgets would have been too great. So if the punishment at the time was to tell the French minister "You're a naughty boy", presumably this will be elevated under the new treaty to "You're a very naughty boy". It's crap. France hasn't balanced its books for over three decades. For those that need reminding, it's called printing money you don't have in order to bolster the economy, or in new speak - Quantitative Easing.

The fundamental problem of the eurozone and the rest of the western world is that we consume more than we produce and simply don't pay our way. The fundamental problem is debt of an unmanageable proportion and economies that are too uncompetitive to trade their way out of it. Southern European countries having to borrow at above inflation rates means that the time honoured tradition of allowing your debts to become worthless through inflation of a long period of time isn't going to work. The debts can only increase. Italy was borrowing today at 6.40% compared to just over 2 for Britain and Germany. I can't confirm if Wikipedia figures are accurate, but the quoted values for expenditure and revenues for the EU are approx. 50% and 44% respectively. On the assumption they are true, I suggest they have a problem.

When the eurozone sets up its rescue fund, who is going to fill the coffers? Everybody is allegedly in too much debt. Under lax EU accounting controls, probably the Greeks using all the EU funds which have been wasted in the country and are now presumably secreted away in a bank vault because the accounts say they should be there. Year on year the accounts can't be signed off because the amounts spent and accounted for can't be audited satisfactorily. If you rock the boat and publicly raise the issue of fraud you are summarily dismissed. The whole thing is a (bad) joke and is now dangerously out of control held together only by a brown adhesive, the smell of which is quite distinctive. The Euro can not survive in its present form.

We should be quite resolute in rejecting any taxes on financial transactions. The Europeans may not like it, but now it is our turn to say it isn't in our interest just as every other country has done when they feel so disposed. This country would pay a major share of the tax to plug the deficit gaps in Europe's coffers. That is not the way to enforce financial discipline because it equates to yet another free lunch for the spendthrift countries. It is popular because everyone likes to attack the greedy bankers, but the problems of the EU do not stem from banks lending sub-prime personal mortgages recklessly, rather they lent far greater sums of money to insolvent and therefore sub-prime countries without the means to trade their way out of indebtedness on the back of an implicit guarantee that the EU was indestructable with Germany's financial backing. The politicians want to tax the banks that lent money to the countries which those same politicians represent in order that they may continue their cosseted lifestyles at the expense of tax payers.

I actually think that we would not be so badly off outside the EU. Nobody would be forced to declare war on any other country. Trade would still continue across the Channel just as it does with the rest of the world. The yearly net payments to Brussels could cease. We could set our laws to benefit our economy rather than have them set as part of the obigatory tit for tat arguments whereby European laws are mostly a collage of points, each negotiated by a member state in order that everyone can say they won. Overly complicated and every point guaranteed to p*** off at least one or two of the 27. Therein lies a fundamental weakness of Europe. Every country still fights for its own benefits. Nobody talks about communal benefits. For the EU to succeed it would require the abolition of individual countries, a proposition which no politician would be able to put to the electorate. Can anyone imagine a former Frenchman standing up and claiming that the citizens of the areas formerly known as the countries of Germany and the United Kingdom were being short changed to the benefit of the area formerly known as France - or vice versa. Or a similar situation involving Spaniards and the Portuguese. All of which assumes that politicians have voted to make themselves obsolete in the first place - fat chance.

I think a big cheer for Cameron, stood his ground, followed by the disgruntled rebuffs from both Labour and liberals who seemly would have signed away our rights without hesistation.

The french/german goverments wanted control of the city of London, the financial institute and heart of the UK, might as well elected a french/german colilition.

The bottom line was that any institute trading in Euros should do so within the Eurozone,

The only three natons that show growth within the Euro are France, Germany and Belgium, the sanctions that they are driving through protect themselves, no other

If Greece had taken a referendum, and withdrawn from the treaty, there was nothing to stop them, it hadn't been thought through and not written within the Mastrict treaty that any country joining would ever withdraw, I am sure the new treaty closes that gap.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Chingford

[azda 979]

Lets be honest here, the UK does'nt need the French/Germans to screw the UK economy out of money as daveg38 thinks and a few others, the British Government is doing a good enough job of doing it to the British public by themselves.

Personally, if the UK does'nt want to have the euro why should they get a say on whats happening with it? Also, joining the Euro did'nt increase Greece's problems, they obviously had their problems before they joined and this is perhaps WHY they joined. Germany has the biggest economy of all EU member states, so when the German Government is bleeding me dry through taxes to prop up other nations then i'd also say why should'nt Germany tell a few others to fall in line or simply f off.

And lets not forget the little dictator who runs the UK, who promised a referendum on the EU but then backed down, only to later have his arse kicked and humiliated in Parliament and lost to a landslide majority, of which was the biggest sinle loss by a Prime Minister, hmmmmm, something wrong in the UK me thinks. You can't have your cake and eat it, the UK is NOT as important as it thinks, and its GDP is almost as bad as the Greeks, so even IF you wanted in the Euro, i doubt right now that it would ever happen.

Lets not forget where all this ball started rolling (in the UK) Northern Rock, not the instigator in the whole financial crisis, but when the Northern Rocks problem surfaced, in the UK, it was a house of cards.

Chingford, there is a French/German coallition already with Cameron and Clegg at the wheel, both don't have an f ing clue what they are doing.Also Greece already had a referendum on the EU and the majority of the people wanted to stay in, which is unlike the UK Government who only wanted to tell their voters, nah nah nah we'll not vote, we'll tell you how it's gonna be. Dictatorship takes many forms

A phone poll today states that 86% of Germans think the UK should now leave the EU. Over to you Mr Cameron

My rant also over

Edited December 10, 2011 by azda

[azda 979]

Just a short quote from Rob

"The Europeans may not like it"

I actually thought that the UK was in the EU, unless i've missed something the last 30 odd years?Does that mean that only mainland Europe is called the EU? Or is the UK also part of the EU when it wants to trade, but bugger helping out with the shit hits the fan? Cake and eating it springs to mind, you can't have both.

Edited December 10, 2011 by azda

[azda 979]

In? Out? or sabotage.

Catch 22 for David I fear.

What ever decision is made the Country must unite to prosper....& Oh...if there is a choice please buy British.

Can't buy a decent British car i'm afraid, ever tried a decent German one though? BMW; VW; PORSCHE; MERCEDES; AUDI, ROLLS ROYCE; MINI? Anyone?

Edited December 10, 2011 by azda

[Rob 3,152]

Just a short quote from Rob

"The Europeans may not like it"

I actually thought that the UK was in the EU, unless i've missed something the last 30 odd years?Does that mean that only mainland Europe is called the EU? Or is the UK also part of the EU when it wants to trade, but bugger helping out with the shit hits the fan? Cake and eating it springs to mind, you can't have both.

You do not need to be in the EU to trade with it. Trade takes place between two countries, one of whom has a product that can be sold in the other. As long as one has goods and the other money, everything is ok.

The shit has hit the fan for the simple reason that countries are being perceived as not creditworthy having borrowed more than they can afford to pay back whilst at the same time being constrained by Eurozone rules in their abilities to adjust the economies in a manner that would allow them to trade their way out of the problem. It isn't in anyone's interest for any country to go tits up as even a small one doing so would have considerable repurcussions somewhere - remember that large volcano in the North Atlantic?

The problem which still isn't being addressed is that all nations have overspent so that their citizens can have ever increasing living standards and benefits by inventing jobs that in the main are not wealth creating. Far better would be targeted industrial investment which would allow countries to set up assisted industries where required to replace imports at the expense of benefits. All nations have suffered as a result of EU dictat whereby they give state aid but only on the condition that you don't operate in a specific field. Rationising industries to the advantage of the "good" Europeans at the expense of ensuring there was no competition without significant hurdles helps the consumer not a jot. What Brussels seeks is a centrally controlled system with cosy relationships whereby competition is virtually eliminated. The UK has financial services, but little industry. Any large taxes imposed on the financial sector can not be to our benefit. Remove the UK's financial sector to Paris or Frankfurt and there will be no cake whatsoever, and the resulting windfall will tide the EU over until next month's crisis because they still refuse to recognise the structural flaws. The comment of everyone working to save the cancer at the expense of the patient is justified.

[azda 979]

Just a short quote from Rob

"The Europeans may not like it"

I actually thought that the UK was in the EU, unless i've missed something the last 30 odd years?Does that mean that only mainland Europe is called the EU? Or is the UK also part of the EU when it wants to trade, but bugger helping out with the shit hits the fan? Cake and eating it springs to mind, you can't have both.

You do not need to be in the EU to trade with it. Trade takes place between two countries, one of whom has a product that can be sold in the other. As long as one has goods and the other money, everything is ok.

The shit has hit the fan for the simple reason that countries are being perceived as not creditworthy having borrowed more than they can afford to pay back whilst at the same time being constrained by Eurozone rules in their abilities to adjust the economies in a manner that would allow them to trade their way out of the problem. It isn't in anyone's interest for any country to go tits up as even a small one doing so would have considerable repurcussions somewhere - remember that large volcano in the North Atlantic?

The problem which still isn't being addressed is that all nations have overspent so that their citizens can have ever increasing living standards and benefits by inventing jobs that in the main are not wealth creating. Far better would be targeted industrial investment which would allow countries to set up assisted industries where required to replace imports at the expense of benefits. All nations have suffered as a result of EU dictat whereby they give state aid but only on the condition that you don't operate in a specific field. Rationising industries to the advantage of the "good" Europeans at the expense of ensuring there was no competition without significant hurdles helps the consumer not a jot. What Brussels seeks is a centrally controlled system with cosy relationships whereby competition is virtually eliminated. The UK has financial services, but little industry. Any large taxes imposed on the financial sector can not be to our benefit. Remove the UK's financial sector to Paris or Frankfurt and there will be no cake whatsoever, and the resulting windfall will tide the EU over until next month's crisis because they still refuse to recognise the structural flaws. The comment of everyone working to save the cancer at the expense of the patient is justified.

I did'nt realise the UK had a finicial centre Rob judging by the state of their finances. I also don't know why everyone is slapping Germany right now, it's them that are bailing everyone out, and of course with any bailout there has to be conditions to safeguard their money, look at what the UK Government did with the banks, bailed them out and own a major stake, thus safeguarding their cash, yet when they ask the banks to help small businesses by giving them loans the banks refuse or give very little out to thise who require it.. Now as a major shareholder, should'nt the Government be slapping the banks with a major crackdown? Are they doing anything about it?

Parliamnet wants to kick start the economy, yet will increase fuel duty or impose hidden taxes elswehere to get their cash. Road tax for example was for the upkeep of roads, i think i read somewhere recently that a very small percentage was actually used on the roads, where's the rest gone? National lottery tax, where's all that going? Overpaid fat MPs in London, their expenses, and of course their is Brussels, but theere are also MPs from the UK there who are also milking the large chocolate bowl.

The UK as a whole is needing a major overhaul, unemployment (i'll give you an instance of how the Germans operate)

In Germany if i was unemployed, i MUST apply for 8 jobs per month, i MUST keep everything i've applied for so that when i go to see them at the office i can prove i've been looking (and they will check) I MUST also every 3 months hand over my bank statements so they can check if i've had 1 euro more than the Government allowance of 75% of my last 3-5 years salaries, if i've had 1 euro more, they WILL deduct this EVERY month.

Now tell me, as a junkie in the UK or an alchy or an Immigrant, you just happily go along to the dole office sign up for your beer token/daily methadone needle and walk away until next signing day, is this not flawed somehow?

Edited December 10, 2011 by azda

[Rob 3,152]

Lets be honest here, the UK does'nt need the French/Germans to screw the UK economy out of money as daveg38 thinks and a few others, the British Government is doing a good enough job of doing it to the British public by themselves.

Personally, if the UK does'nt want to have the euro why should they get a say on whats happening with it? Also, joining the Euro did'nt increase Greece's problems, they obviously had their problems before they joined and this is perhaps WHY they joined. Germany has the biggest economy of all EU member states, so when the German Government is bleeding me dry through taxes to prop up other nations then i'd also say why should'nt Germany tell a few others to fall in line or simply f off.

And lets not forget the little dictator who runs the UK, who promised a referendum on the EU but then backed down, only to later have his arse kicked and humiliated in Parliament and lost to a landslide majority, of which was the biggest sinle loss by a Prime Minister, hmmmmm, something wrong in the UK me thinks. You can't have your cake and eat it, the UK is NOT as important as it thinks, and its GDP is almost as bad as the Greeks, so even IF you wanted in the Euro, i doubt right now that it would ever happen.

Lets not forget where all this ball started rolling (in the UK) Northern Rock, not the instigator in the whole financial crisis, but when the Northern Rocks problem surfaced, in the UK, it was a house of cards.

Chingford, there is a French/German coallition already with Cameron and Clegg at the wheel, both don't have an f ing clue what they are doing.Also Greece already had a referendum on the EU and the majority of the people wanted to stay in, which is unlike the UK Government who only wanted to tell their voters, nah nah nah we'll not vote, we'll tell you how it's gonna be. Dictatorship takes many forms

A phone poll today states that 86% of Germans think the UK should now leave the EU. Over to you Mr Cameron

My rant also over

I wish 86% of the EU Commission thought we should leave the EU, then something might get done, and it would make resolving the problems easier for all concerned. Just as current thinking is that the banks are too big because of their ability to derail whole economies when things go wrong, so it has to be recognised that the EU is too big, and when structurally unsound as it is today it threatens the existence or stability of more than just the EU. Don't forget that Germany is only acting in the way it is because it is still on a 60 year guilt trip. If it was a stand alone country, its currency would be rated higher leading to a lower trade surplus and other countries who have benefitted by holding on to its coat tails would not be so reliant on this proxy economy for their prosperity and creditworthiness. They would have to sink or swim based on acting alone for their own benefit which would be best achieved by a dose of introspection. As with all benefit recipients both individual and national, the appeal of taking your own steps to ensure you sort out your contribution to the overall problem isn't very attractive. The problem is still politicians who require ambiguity to fudge solutions because they dare not tell EU citizens they are living beyond their means. Concrete decisions that they can be held to account for are strictly taboo.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Rob

[Rob 3,152]

Just a short quote from Rob

"The Europeans may not like it"

I actually thought that the UK was in the EU, unless i've missed something the last 30 odd years?Does that mean that only mainland Europe is called the EU? Or is the UK also part of the EU when it wants to trade, but bugger helping out with the shit hits the fan? Cake and eating it springs to mind, you can't have both.

You do not need to be in the EU to trade with it. Trade takes place between two countries, one of whom has a product that can be sold in the other. As long as one has goods and the other money, everything is ok.

The shit has hit the fan for the simple reason that countries are being perceived as not creditworthy having borrowed more than they can afford to pay back whilst at the same time being constrained by Eurozone rules in their abilities to adjust the economies in a manner that would allow them to trade their way out of the problem. It isn't in anyone's interest for any country to go tits up as even a small one doing so would have considerable repurcussions somewhere - remember that large volcano in the North Atlantic?

The problem which still isn't being addressed is that all nations have overspent so that their citizens can have ever increasing living standards and benefits by inventing jobs that in the main are not wealth creating. Far better would be targeted industrial investment which would allow countries to set up assisted industries where required to replace imports at the expense of benefits. All nations have suffered as a result of EU dictat whereby they give state aid but only on the condition that you don't operate in a specific field. Rationising industries to the advantage of the "good" Europeans at the expense of ensuring there was no competition without significant hurdles helps the consumer not a jot. What Brussels seeks is a centrally controlled system with cosy relationships whereby competition is virtually eliminated. The UK has financial services, but little industry. Any large taxes imposed on the financial sector can not be to our benefit. Remove the UK's financial sector to Paris or Frankfurt and there will be no cake whatsoever, and the resulting windfall will tide the EU over until next month's crisis because they still refuse to recognise the structural flaws. The comment of everyone working to save the cancer at the expense of the patient is justified.

I did'nt realise the UK had a finicial centre Rob judging by the state of their finances. I also don't know why everyone is slapping Germany right now, it's them that are bailing everyone out, and of course with any bailout there has to be conditions to safeguard their money, look at what the UK Government did with the banks, bailed them out and own a major stake, thus safeguarding their cash, yet when they ask the banks to help small businesses by giving them loans the banks refuse or give very little out to thise who require it.. Now as a major shareholder, should'nt the Government be slapping the banks with a major crackdown? Are they doing anything about it?

Parliamnet wants to kick start the economy, yet will increase fuel duty or impose hidden taxes elswehere to get their cash. Road tax for example was for the upkeep of roads, i think i read somewhere recently that a very small percentage was actually used on the roads, where's the rest gone? National lottery tax, where's all that going? Overpaid fat MPs in London, their expenses, and of course their is Brussels, but theere are also MPs from the UK there who are also milking the large chocolate bowl.

The UK as a whole is needing a major overhaul, unemployment (i'll give you an instance of how the Germans operate)

In Germany if i was unemployed, i MUST apply for 8 jobs per month, i MUST keep everything i've applied for so that when i go to see them at the office i can prove i've been looking (and they will check) I MUST also every 3 months hand over my bank statements so they can check if i've had 1 euro more than the Government allowance of 75% of my last 3-5 years salaries, if i've had 1 euro more, they WILL deduct this EVERY month.

Now tell me, as a junkie in the UK or an alchy or an Immigrant, you just happily go along to the dole office sign up for your beer token/daily methadone needle and walk away until next signing day, is this not flawed somehow?

Yep. We are all singing the same tune, just in different languages. I have no complaints about Germany, in fact I would be extremely angry about the rest of Europe if I was German. Rhetorical question, but how would Europe play if Germany took its ball away?