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

In recent months much has been made in the tabloids of the schism between the parties on the issues of the European constitution and the Euro.
Is it just more tabloid fuss or will the parties position on this matter affect your vote in any way?
I don't feel i know enough about the nuts and bolts of the constitution to make a decision yet although i do have a sense of unease about some European decisions of late.
When it comes to the Euro i'm afraid my answer is unashamedly sentimental ~ i don't want to give up the pound

Well interestingly Europe isn't a big issue this time around as it was in 2001 and 1997, as the issue that was tearing the tory party apart.

As an election issue, the Euro isn't looming on the horizon as it might. Where it gets more interesting is on this issue of the European constitution.

I think its clear now that this is not some formalising of existing treaties (though it includes that) but say for what it is, a Constitution for Europe - a body that now includes far more nations that it ever did or was ever envisioned.


Now Blair shocked his european colleagues by saying that whether Briatin signed up to this document or not would be subject to a referrendum by the British people, the complicated beuocracy on this points means that unless all members states consent to it, the constitution will be rejected, and that consent now rests at the hands of the public in a referrendum vote.

Happily Tony set this after the May 5th election, so that if he is deposed as Prime Minister, it's not his problem (somethign GB can tackle perhaps), if he is relected as some predict he must be - then this might be the breakign point of his premiership when if it is proven he can no longer carry the electorate on the issue of reforming Europe he will step down.

In any event, in France, quite amazingly given how the EU was formed, the trend there too is to vote no in a referrendum, and speculation is moutning this will depose Chirac, saving Blair the trouble of being havign to hold a referrendum himself (since the constitution will not go ahead if France reject it first) and thereby securing him in the PM spot a while longer much to the chargrin of Gordon.


*deep breath*

Now onto how I feel about all of this political machinations to one side. I am instinctly rather sceptical of Europe, I like you do not relish the idea of monetary unity - and paralleling my posts in the "1997 promises" thread - I think keeping control of your interests rates is pretty funademntal to the stabilty of a country, and I think it is a mistake to lock yourself into a system that robs you of the power.

That said, I have a conflict - my political leanings are Liberal Democrat, who are unabashedly pro europe. On just about everything else i find their stance to my liking but this always gives me pause.

I am forced to reflect on this proposal, do I want a rejection of Europe handled badly or an embrace of the european model handled well?

Europe was a social experiment on a grand scale after World War II with the specific intention of preventing further war in Europe.
(it has in that respect visably failed - Milosovich anyone?)
As for the politcal will to itegrate further I am as I said before highly sceptical. I think countries can co-operate just fine without needing to resort to combining in a federal system. However, if that would prevent further "coalitions of the willing" springing up and scotting off to depose whomever they like on the flimsiest of evidence and no pretence to moral backing, I might have to reconsider.

As briefly as possible

YES to the Euro , its inevitable

NO to the Constitution and subsequent slide into a Euro-State

Novo

Brief. A trick I never managed.

Don't wish to be too picky but:

Constitution (definition)

The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing.

The composition or structure of something; makeup.
The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.

The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
The document in which such a system is recorded.

(dictionary.com, 2005)

While it appears common to consider constitutions as being something that define governements, they also define a lot of other institutions. There's hardly an institute or similar gathering without one. Besides, taken together the various treaties of the EU are already a constitution.

But that's just semantics. What matters is what it says, not what it is called.

And what is this problem with monetary union and why focus on interest rates?

Our economy and its success or failure is dependent on far more than interest rates: taxation, public spending, private spending, debt, foreign investment, etc. etc. Interest rates do have an impact, but its not so much that surrendering control to the european bank will suddenly result in job cuts, inflation, etc. Besides, UK interest rates are no longer in government control anyway, to suggest otherwise is wildly inaccurate.

Monetary union has as many advantages as disadvantages. I for one would seriously welcome the prospect of being able to take out a mortgage with a significanly lower interest rate than anything on offer in the UK.

Finally, did you mean Milosevic? That would be Serbia, then?

As far as I can recall, Serbia is not now, nor has it ever been part of the EEC, EC or EU. Also as far as I know, if part of the aims of EEC, EC, EU, etc. was "with the specific intention of preventing further war in Europe", it has been a resounding success, as not one member state has ever declared war on another member state.

Yes you're right that UK interest rates are not under the direct control of the government. However half the group within the bank that set the interest rates are appointed by the government, including the top job of governor, and the targets that they work to are set by the government.

These targets are those which are best suited to the British economic needs, which are of course going to be different to those of other European nations.

If at any time the government was not happy with the direction that the Bank of England was taking, they could take back control be repealing the 1998 Bank of England act. By engaging in a single currency and handing control of that currency to a European wide bank, the ability by the government to control the nation's economy is severely curtailed.

ack. your quite right. *slaps forehead* check facts before posting.



Oh for edit/delete switch.

"If at any time the government was not happy with the direction that the Bank of England was taking, they could take back control be repealing the 1998 Bank of England act. By engaging in a single currency and handing control of that currency to a European wide bank, the ability by the government to control the nation's economy is severely curtailed."

You suggest two things. That there is no exit route from the EU or EMU, a common error, and also that interest rates are the single biggest influencing factor on the UK economy.

The treaties that bind the members of the EU and even the "constitution" provide the means for a member state to exit the union. It would not necessarily be pretty or quick (after all you won't undo the work of 40 years to get the EU to this point in a single day), but it can be done.

"Our economy and its success or failure is dependent on far more than interest rates: taxation, public spending, private spending, debt, foreign investment, etc. etc."

The government has at it's disposal such tools as income tax, national insurance, VAT, fuel duty, excise duties, corporation tax, tax allowances, capital gains tax, child benefit, unemployment benefit, the TV licence, state pensions, public spending, etc, etc not to mention that they are the largest employer in europe, let alone the UK. The NHS employs more people than any other single organisation in europe, a total in excess of 1m.

Do you really think that flexing interest rates a little has that big an impact? It is an abysmal way to attempt to control an economy. The effects of a change can take months to kick in.

Madent

Forgot to say that the middle quote in the last post was taken from my own earlier post and is not a quote from Grey Desk. Sorry for any confusion.

I didn't say that there was no exit route from the EU once you were in it. However I would wager that the exit becomes more traumatic, and more expensive the deeper a nation is into the thing. Therefore the decision to enter has to be considered very very carefully from all angles. To my mind the case is not sold.

Again you're right that governments have other tools to control their economy, but interest rates form one of the core tools - if it didn't then they wouldn't spend so much time and effort controlling it - so to hand control over to someone not accountable to nation's people strikes me as being a bit too trusting.

GD

"exit becomes more traumatic, and more expensive the deeper a nation is in"

Perhaps. No one has tried to leave yet so it's a moot point. Also as far as I am aware, no one has seriously costed the consequences, so it may also be relatively easy and cheap to leave.

I consider myself to be relatively open minded on the issue itself, but see no rational argument against that is stronger than any of the arguments to join.

The majority of the arguments against, focus on issues of patriotism, national identity, loss of control, etc. If you cut through those arguments and start looking at real issues, like whether you as individual will be worse or better off, then I've yet to find anyone with a good case that demonstrates they will actually be worse off.

Most people have a mortgage - they will pay less. People who travel will not have to change currencies - they will pay less. People who work for or depend on foreign companies and foreign investment will have a better chance of investment coming to the UK - they will be better off. People will be able to purchase foreign goods directly, increasing competition and lowering prices - so they will also be better off. etc.

In exchange for these and many other benefits we would lose a rather poor tool for regulating the economy and currency with the Queen's head on.

It is also important to remember that monetary union does not have anything whatsoever to do with the constitution or political union. There is absolutely no reason why europe can not have a single monetary system with a single bank, irrespective of whether or not the constitution is accepted or rejected.

Madent

>>In exchange for these and many other benefits we would lose a rather poor tool for regulating the economy and currency with the Queen's head on.<<

A common misconception. The queens head would still be on the back of British Euro coins, it would just be surrounded by the 12 EU stars.

In which case the only "significant" disadvantage is the loss of control over interest rates - a simple but very inefficient way to control the money supply, particularly when compared against the raft of other options available to the government.

Well I get confused by anything too economic, but I'm in Ireland and I have to say that I find the Euro to be very handy.

The costs? Well replacing one's entire currency is going to cost rather a lot. True we've done it before, and much of Europe has done it a few years ago, so the process is not insurmountable. But my point would be why spend the money doing all that if the case for single currency isn't sold.

You make the point that the European Constitution isn't the same thing as a single currency. And that's very true. What I want to know is what is it for.

The last time that the British people were specifically asked for their veiws on their country's place in Europe it was about signing up for some free trade agreements back 30 years ago now. As I'm sure you'll agree things have moved on quite significantly since then, so I think it's time that we were asked what we feel about it all over again.

And finally what is so bad about making decisions based upon feelings of national identity etc?

Good afternoon Madent,

Just read your interesting post.

I think I feel ,like you, that there are many good reasons for joining Europe, but if we do I would wantit to be on the basis of a Federal system as in the USA, where we [as a State]keep control over all the areas now contolled by Westminster or our devolved neighbours.

As you say there is no reason why we cannot switch to the Euro as currency, and I have no problem with that. What I don't want is contol / legislation brought about by unelected and irremovable beaurocrats in Brussels, who have a fixed interest in having as many fingers as possible in as many pies as are available.

I know that Pro Euro folk say that the Strasbourg Parliament is responsible for passing the Commisions proposals into law, but local evidence shows the huge effect caused by Quangos set up by our Govt. I know that Parliamentary Committees can scrutinise their actions , but in the face of a welter of paper it is always too late.

If you feel that I am wrong in my concerns over what might happen, could I have your views on the C A P and the Fisheries policy please.



PS I would personally find it easier to follow who is replying to whom if e all adressed the relevant poster, as is my habit. Novo

>>And finally what is so bad about making decisions based upon feelings of national identity etc?<<

There's nothing wrong with it, but I just don't see why people think that it's so important. If someone said to me tommorow that Ireland was going to cease to exist and become a part of a big European superstate, then I wouldn't care so long as that state was a fair and just one.

Novosibirsk,

You should see a little diamond shape made up of five dots - one in the centre and one each north, south, east and west - in each posting. This is a navigation tree and clicking on the dots guides you back through the conversation to who said what to whaom.

Hello GodBen

History means nothing too you then ? Presumably you would be equally sanquine if Manchester United were to merge with Arsenal? After all it would still be football.

Well that's fine for you GodBen, and if you're happy with that then you're happy with that, and who am I to complain.

What I don't like is the way that arguments based around national identity and the like are commonly dismissed as being somehow unimportant. When I raise these sort of arguments with people who are in favour of integration, I get the feeling that they veiw me as just a little bit racist in someway. I don't like that.