Wol

No, the UK has not lost ALL powers to enact legislation, but it has effectively given most important power to the unelected and unsackable backroom committees. MEPs are the virtually powerless front men to make us think it's democratic.

Power lies with a group of ex Marxists, Maoists and fellow travellers such as Junker. (Forget about the questionable history of many of them.)

The elite with their obsession with the Grand Project will stop at nothing to complete integration of more than 2 dozen completely different cultures, economies, laws etc. The €uro fiasco shows the length they will go to - Greece, which under their own rules couldn't join - can never repay its debts, but as it is a political issue the can is kicked down the road time and time again.

I voted to join/stay in the common market in ignorance of the hidden agenda of a federal state. All the people like Heath etc were committed Europhiles and kept the agenda secret. Since then politicians have managed to keep it out of the public eye quite successfully.

Like most €urosceptics I would fully accept the concept we voted for. But federal government by committee and QMV, which is the objective, is a nightmare in the making.

GarryP

I suppose the question is, what commons standards, benchmarks, and laws do you actually need to allow a common market?

If we can deal with different languages, differing plugs, etc. then I'd suggest what's actually needed for a common market is fairly limited in scope. A minimal set would make sure the customers were getting what they expected, and that terms such as warranties would be clearly spelt out; but that's about it. You might create a separate 'business currency' that trade could be conducted in, to offset some currency risk - but only if both sides wanted to use it.

A few thousand people to manage it, tops, in a building, somewhere cheap.

The whole 'ever closer union', common currency for everyone, zero borders, idea isn't a common market; it's a federal superstate. And nobody in the UK has ever signed up to one of those.

So the outcome ought to be quite simple - yes we'll have some of that minimal set common market, but none of the federal superstate - thanks. And all that's needed to achieve that is to recognises that none of the previous politicians had the right to give away rights to the EU that they had only ever been temporarily loaned - so all those subsequent treaties don't bind the UK at all.

And given that the EU is structurally screwed as a result of trying to bind all these different cultures and financial systems together against the forces pushing apart - that's actually the best position for everyone - which is why there's large and growing support for it across the EU countries (just not with the EU politicians, who'd be kicked off the gravy train).

astera

I think the Euro is a very good concept that is inevitable unless you want each country to have its own dinky, little currency that gets kicked around and is constantly vulnerable to the financial behemoths of this world. You either sign up for a strong, single currency that acts like a "financial umbrella" for the continent or you can choose to go it alone. The Euro is one of Europe's strengths, not weaknesses.

Greece is NOT an example of why there is something wrong with the Euro. It is a prime example of an entity that never qualified for joining the Euro but falsified accounts and committed grand fraud in order to do so. If any individual does something similar on a smaller scale they "Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200."

In Greece this was done at the highest echelons of government and of course there is no responsibility to be had. The Euro has benefited them as it has given them access to cheap financing. This is a brilliant thing when used wisely, but can be abused by mindless politicians who think that they can now borrow more (due to lower financing costs) and pass on the debt problem to future generations.

Greece's problem is that it does not want to face reality. They have no money yet they think that they can still retire early, give each other big salaries and retirement payouts, etc. And they think that European taxpayers should basically pay for their lavish existence. Un-frigging-believable. It's like that joke: "Don't have the time to go down to the beach, to go out for a long dinner, to lay by the pool doing nothing? No problem! Hire someone from Greece to do all that for you!"

In terms of European integration we need a strong and ever-closer union for the future. Otherwise we'll be picked apart by the rise of Asia. Even today's political crisis caused by the Putin has shown how far Europe has come - years ago he could have manipulated each country on its own, but today he has overestimated Europe's lack of cohesion.

Wol

[QUOTE=astera;11670118]
Greece is NOT an example of why there is something wrong with the Euro. It is a prime example of an entity that never qualified for joining the Euro but falsified accounts and committed grand fraud in order to do so. If any individual does something similar on a smaller scale they "Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200."
/QUOTE]


But you identify one of the fundamental flaws of the whole project. Before the €uro started it was transparently obvious that it could not work longterm without full fiscal union. That is part of what the Eurocrats are always working towards. OK, the Greeks fiddled all their numbers - as did many other countries - but (and this is crucial) they did so with the full cooperation of the European commission. Th Grand Project cannot be allowed to fail, politically.

The €uro is a political entity, masquerading as a currency. They will go to any lengths to "save" it.



》In terms of European integration we need a strong and ever-closer union for the future. Otherwise we'll be picked apart by the rise of Asia. Even today's political crisis caused by the Putin has shown how far Europe has come - years ago he could have manipulated each country on its own, but today he has overestimated Europe's lack of cohesion《

There is no cohesion. 27 or so independent countries with different world views cannot agree on most important issues or not, at least, in a timely manner. That's part of the reason there's haste for "ever closer union" - things become much simpler when a few unelected peploe can meet in back rooms and determine how the plebs are going to be governed, sans the inconvenient need to retain voters' backing.

.

astera

You cannot have a strong, common market and yet have two dozen dinky currencies with which people and companies have to deal with, each being played by the massive banking mobs out there who also get a cut out of every cross-border transaction. So screw the banks and their attempts to topple the Euro and get back to the days of robbing everyone in Europe on a daily basis.

The Euro has worked very well thus far. The only time things get rocky is when someone is too lazy to work, too lazy to admit that they cannot afford their lavish lifestyle, yet they still decide to continue with their way of life (racking up an enormous debt) and then believe that it's only fair for other people (those more hard-working) to be the ones who foot the bill.

Frankly I don't think this kind of attitude would work in any kind of setup.

We all share similar values, are in the same economic block and most of us are even part of the same military alliance.

Currently the majority of our immigration is from outside the EU where we are in fact letting in a lot of people with very different world views and values. So I'm surprised that tabloids choose to focus on the smaller part of today's immigration which is also the most beneficial part. Then again how bright are the people who read the tabloids? I rest my case....

Wol

Astera:

We evidently inhabit different planets, so must agree to differ.

GarryP

Of course you can. The cheapest and most risk free way of dealing with the issue you mention is for governments to do the currency exchange at zero cost (probably for defined purposes, like goods trade and holiday money) cutting the banks out. The very threat of that is enough to get those 'banking mobs' into line.

The euro has been the disaster that was predicted at the beginning. The whole point of 'convergence criteria' was that the economies have to be essentially the same for it to work - but it was fudged, then fudged again - because 'every closer union' was more important than sane decision making.

Face it, the economies of europe are all different, running on different behaviours, methodologies, timelines, etc. The ONLY way to make a single currency work in that scenario is for ONE government across the EU, with money from one area going to bail out another (eg the germans bailing out the greeks) as a matter of course. Since that's not going to happen, the euro is, and will remain, a destructive failure. The closer you attempt to bind the dissimilar regions without automatic bailouts, the worse you make it - and the more force it comes apart with.

The euro is a timebomb.

astera

Well, it is a typical view for many in the UK to see the Euro as something that was doomed to fail from the very outset. It's been the favourite tune of tabloids from day one. If the Euro was destined to fail the banks would know this and the currency would have been swept off the economic map. As it stands you can still get more Dollars for your Euros so obviously the financial world at large sees the Euro as a normal, safe currency that is here to stay. Not something that is waiting to fall over...

Banks love the UK and being able to shake people down on every transaction. Guess who sponsored the "Save the Pound" campaign? Not too difficult to figure this one out... Going overseas? Step right in. Banks will do anything and spend whatever it takes to keep the perception of the Euro in the UK as negative as possible. This is their biggest cash-cow in Europe right now, and losing it is not an option.

The economies don't have to be the same for a currency to work. That is just a tabloid cop out excuse. Scotland has a different economy from the south of England yet it's not like the Pound cannot be used in both places. Is the UK in a constant state of internal bailouts due to this, propping up a Pound that would otherwise fail? Don't think so. The economies of various states in the US are vastly different (Washington State's Boeing/Microsoft/Amazon/Starbucks/etc. vs Idaho's potato industry) and yet all are able to survive under a single currency without Idaho constantly needing a bailout to keep the currency viable.

Just look at Greece now... still thinking that they can live above their means and that others will pay for their lavish existence. There shouldn't be a need for bailouts such as Greece, which are purely down to a mentality factor and nothing to do with economics if you are in fact dealing with a sensible person and not a parasite. If I have a CC and I overspend and become insolvent, is the CC to blame or my spending habits? Replace 'CC' with 'Euro' and you have your answer.

GarryP

Err yes, that's the point, it evidentially is doing just that:



The ones at the top bailout the ones at the bottom. If each had a separate currency there would be some serious revaluation and service cutting for the ones at the bottom - why do you think regional income taxes are an idea on the rise for the tories?

astera

The way they treat the City as if it's such a huge part of GDP is just plain wrong. Derivatives and voodoo products are not that huge a part of the economy - they look more like a bubble that's artificially inflating the stats.

Remind me a bit of Singapore and all that trade, high GDP, when in reality a lot of it has little to do with Singapore except for the paperwork (invoicing). Or Cyprus.

London is a huge metropolic in its own right, and a big economy at that, but when you see numbers suggesting that the banks in the city centre make up 1/5 or 1/4 of the UK economy it does look rather amusing.