h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Isn't it now the EU (European Union), having been the EEC (European Economic Community) where EC is European Commision, the twenty odd bureaucrats and their dentist.
I would have thought a mention of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), Wine Lakes, Mrs. T. and her handbaggings, the fudging of economic conditions for the Euro and Up Yours, Delors would all have been worthwhile.

Or should that be Euro Septics?
Over rated
Over paid
Over there (fortunately)

You made the point (albeit maybe in passing) that the crucial word "economic" has been dropped from the title of the Community. And yet what the British people signed up for in the referendum was a Common Market, an open exchange of goods and services throughout Europe. What we emphatically did not sign up for was a federal Europe.

In my view, not only should we have a referendum on the question of joining the Euro, but on the whole notion of membership of the EU as it has evolved

amazing how little people know about "europe". interesting to look forward to the day austria and britain are leaving the eu.

at least we could than start having a real political union... and having more fun

Oh, yes, if the UK wants to go, I won't try to stop them!
They have been blocking the integration process for years, so , if they leave, some hings will be easier. But what really is a problem, that is the fact that I cannot choose Fench or Spanish for the EP.
I believe that if it were a real unified Europe, there shouldn't be something like "Germany" or "France" any longer. I am German, but I would prefer being European.

Yeah, it hasn't been called the European Community since 1993 (IIRC).

jd

I located, in an attic, some of the campaign material used to promote the EU last time there was a referendum... amongst the more amusing sections was the beautiful quote:
"Joining the EU will not affect our laws".

*laughs*

Risible, isn't it? Things have moved a long way from the original proposition. Mind you, some of the changes have been positive - I'm thinking particularly of the Human Rights Act here. A lot of nonsense has been talked about it in the media, but it seems good to me that these basic rights are at long last enshrined in UK law.

Oh yes - the Human Rights Act is one of the more sensible pieces of legislation I've seen for a long time. I've a high opinion of the EU declaration of human rights - highest, curiously, where it goes less far than the UN one - better to achieve the achievable than dream of the unachievable.

"...better to achieve the achievable than dream of the unachievable."

I couldn't agree more. It doesn't take more than about ten minutes to read the Articles of the HRA; it's been kept simple and to the point - which is unusual for legislation And it's intended to be "a living instrument" - so that courts can interpret its relatively simple, minimum provisions in a commonsense way, reflecting the individual views of each community that applies it. But the really important stuff is non-negotiable; torture can never be justified, for example.

I may be overstating my case somewhat, but the HRA reminds me a little of the US Declaration of Independence. Written in simple, straightforward language, the spirit and intention of the piece is obvious, not tangled up in lawyerly obfuscation.

As per a previous posting;
"I look forward to the day Austria and UK leave......."

Very open minded...

Very politically aware....

Very stupid...........

Get a life...

And some brain cells...

I hear K-mart sells them cheap at this time of year.........

If you're equating Euro-scepticism with xenophobia, I'd say the point was dubious. According to the report I read yesterday, Euro-sceptic Britain has less racial trouble than Euro-enthusiast Germany. Certainly my own Euro-scepticism is based on economic and political grounds. I'd welcome UK entry into a democratic federal Europe, but the way it's developed seems more like a distant and unaccountable oligarchy of bureaucrats in Brussels. And economically, it's still to be demonstrated how a common interest rate can meet the needs of so many widely varying economic areas.

The curious thing about the danish election was that they rejectected the EU for exactly the opposite reasons to the UK - the danes were complaining that joining a federal europe would undermine their socialist bias. UK sceptics tend to complain it would undermine their capitalist bias.

So I don't think that brussels is unaccountable - I just think it's having problems because of the wide differences across europe. For all brits complain that the eu is too uncompetitive, the danes complain that it's not helping the poor enough, and the result is a compromise - perhaps a better solution than either of the extremes?

You're opening a whole new can of worms now I tend to the view that to filter meaningful wealth down to the poorest in society, you have to run your economy in such a way that meaningful wealth is created. If you over-regulate and over-tax businesses then before long the engine room of wealth creation grinds to a halt. That's the real reason that the euro has lost much value against the dollar - there has been a net outflow of business capital investment out of the eurozone and into less heavily regulated areas of the world. Like the UK, for example.

Now, as somebody who fervently believes that much more needs to be done to help the disadvantaged in our society, and with a view to the economic reality of the world (however distasteful it may be), I can't help thinking that the best model for wealth creation is the American one. It's the delivery of that wealth downwards that fails in the US, but there's nothing wrong with the engine room.

Sure, but this is only a problem if you have heavily free-market economies. If every country in the world had similar levels of tax and social regulation, then companies couldn't evade their obligations to society by relocating like crazy.

That said, eurozone is probably large enough that it doesn't really have to care if the euro drops in value. Just like the US - most of the trade is internal.

That isn't an argument against heavily free-market economies. You could just as easily have said "but this is only a problem if you have regulated economies".

If I understand what you're saying (and correct me if I've got this wrong), the problem is the *difference* in regulation between countries.

If they were all *totally* free-market then they would indeed all have similar levels of tax and social regulation i.e. none whatsoever.

yeah, and the poor would starve in the streets, while the rich ran over their children in their tanks...

Maybe, but that wasn't really my point.

There is a problem in having large differences in tax and regulation between countries. This problem is pretty much independent of the absolute level of tax and regulation; it is dependent on the *relative* level of them.

The fact that there is a problem with this is not, in itself, an argument against free-market economies. Rather it is an argument against countries having vastly different kinds of economies.

Oh yeah - of course... sorry, I was getting cynical...

All I'm saying is that whether socialist or communist countries find it hard to compete with free marked ones isn't an argument against socialism or communism... that's all