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

Thank you G.D

I'll try to use it. 'My ' method I brought over from the POV Board, one knew who was adressing which post by using relavant nicknames, but I appreciate the guidance

Novo: >>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.<<

Boy did you pick the wrong example. I hate football.

Of course I know my history. I know that Ireland fought hard to get our independance from British oppression, but all that gave Ireland was 50 years of poverty. It was only when we joined the EU that we began to become a wealthy, modern society.

I think the idea of the federal system like the US is a good one. We could all keep our own laws, so long as they don't break the overriding laws of the EU constitution.

GodBen

Well, I had to pick one, and I'm sorry it was football. perhaps I shold have chosen Guinness with Murphy's ?

As a matter of interest I thought Eire's new found posperity came as a result of Euro subsidies being pumped into the country. rather like the Spanish coastal Highway from the French border to the Costa Del Sol, which was financed by Europe, and cost the equivalent[allegedly] of the annual UK contibition to the E.U.

GD

Replacing one's currency isn't going to cost that much, honestly it won't. Coinage and bank notes are replaced constantly. It's the marginal cost of replacing more than usual. Besides the two currencies would co-exist in a transitional period anyway.

We appear in agreement on the consitution. It doesn't matter what it's called, its what it says.

And I have no objection to a referrendum on the euro either. In fact, given the complete lack of ability on the part of our MP's to actually engage with and listen to the people who elect them, quite welcome the idea, providing that the debate is not hi-jacked to talk about feelings of national identity or closer political union and is actually about the pros and cons of monetary union.

Madent

Novo:

Nope, I don't drink either.

Yes, Irelands wealth was built on the back of money given to us by the EU, paid for by the rich EU countries. But most of that has stopped now that we've become so rich and 10 new poorer countries have joined.

I see your point though. All we did was build new roads and improve the general infastructure of the country. But Britain could have used that money to build a couple more domes.

GodBen, watch it. No taxpayers money was used in paying for the Dome. It all came from the national lottery funds ie a tax that is voluntarily paid by the stupid

The place of arguments around national identity in the debate over the future direction of the EU is a tricky one, and I honestly don't know the answer to it. What I do know is that it is something that can't just be swept under the carpet.

My experience in these sorts of thing comes from Canada. This is a nation that really doesn't know what it thinks about itself. The West resents Quebec and the concessions that have been made to keep them in the country and would quite like to bid them adieu. The Centre doesn't mind to much, it's too busy making money to bother one way or the other most of the time. Quebec is interested only in preserving its identity and wonders why all the major international companies keep moving out of their territory and into Ontario. The Maritimes are just terrified that Quebec will leave and they'll be cut off from the rest of the country.

I think that what I'm trying to say is that if you get it wrong, you're going to end up with a gurgling bloody mess. So you've got to be sure that any decision is the right decision and made for the right reasons.

Hi, novo

I suggest that you find out a bit more about how the EU actually works. The only non-democratic part of the structure is the Commission, but even that is answerable to the European Parliament.

The council comprises government ministers - that we elect.
The parliament comprises MEP's - that we elect.
The commission is nominated by the council and approved by the parliament.

Legislation is drafted in much the same way that UK legislation is drafted - by a civil service, that consults with the civil services of member states.

I think it is the commission that hits all the headlines and that we perceive as causing problems, more than either the council or the parliament.

I think that the problem is that no-one in europe actually want to put one person in power, certainly none of the council want to see a single leader emerge. But without a head or executive, the whole thing can seem directionless and self serving. The commission is the compromise answer. It's a tricky area.

AFAIK, CAP and Fisheries have virtually nothing to do with either the commission or the parliament. These are agreed by the council as part of the horsetrading exercises that for example Maggie Thatcher used to get a rebate for the UK from the EU.

Believe it or not, they are gradually being eroded. Probably as a consequence of the fair trade movement, sustainable development pressures and the pressure of providing debt relief to the third world.

There is no reasonable justification for policies that prevent fair trade within the EU and only a marginal justification for policies that provide a small cushion for european interests.

Madent

GD

I guess that you are right in that things like national identity do need some consideration.

But I think that where I'm coming from is that issues like these are actively being used to prevent and obscure constructive debate on the practical pros and cons of the Euro, i.e. will we be better off, or worse off financially, as a country or as individuals and why?

Once that debate has been held then we can debate the merits of Stephenson and Nightingale and their contribution to national identity all you like.

Madent

I for one am used to living in a transnational "super state" where people of a different nationality have a say in the politics that effect me.

It is called the United Kingdom. Scottis, Irish and Welsh people are also invited to the party.

I do not have an "in principle" objection to the idea of closer Europe. However I think it in its current form is corrupt from top to bottom.

I do not see how as an organisation structure put in place primarily to ensure that French farmers stayed in the countryside so as not to undermine De Gaulles electoral base in post war france is still relevent to an enlarged EU.

I also think that the debacles of the accounts not being signed off and the whistle blowers being persecuted seriously undermines the EU.
For my money the Commision has to be hamstrung and the European Parliament empowered before any further intergration is even talked about.

For as long as I can remember, the Pro-Euro Campaigners have tried to marginalise those against our adoption of the euro as extremists of one form or another. Still, almost 70% of UK voters don't want the euro while only a handful vote for extremist parties.

I oppose our adoption of the euro on economic grounds. The one-interest-rate-fits-all restriction is too much of a bind. Right now, in euroland, it's a big issue for Germany who needs very low rates and France and Spain whose economies are much stronger. Against all the dire predictions, the UK economy has not weakened against Euroland and still has it's independence.

In addition, we have not had to break the Stability Pact which the euro-land countries agreed when they set up the euro, only to be ignored since. It is doubtful whether the Germans, in particular, would have voted for the euro without the Stability Pact and now they've been sold down the river.

People argued years ago that the euro is inevitable in the UK; but it's a jaded argument now. The No Campaign won the argument and the pro-euro campaign retired hurt, mainly beacuse it is apparent that we are surviving well outside euroland and euroland is not at ease with itself.

No to the euro and no the EU Constitution. With such massively important issues, we have to have compelling reasons to change, not just dire, dark threats of Blair and the like.

Reg I think it is far to early to say that the argument has been won or lost.

Firstly I dont think at any point the "Pro" campaign has ever got into gear.

Secondly I dont think we can judge the long term impact on both Britain and the Eurozone of half a decade of EMU.

How can we know what will say be happeneing in 10 years, for all we know we might be in a massive recession begging to join and they wont have us...

That could be the case, but at least it will be our recession. Myself, I'm not too keen on proping up some of the unsustainable social benefits that are paid in parts of Europe. I'm thinking Italy and Germany primarily.

I still think it is *far* to early to try and authoritativly judge that staying out is a broadly positive thing for our economy, not least beacuse we have no way of actually know how our economy would have performed had we joined.

Very true.

However I'd still like to know how Italy is going to make good on its pension commitments.

I think a big problem with the Euro is the exemptions that have been made for some countries who didn't meet the required economic stability.Whenever Britain signs up to something we seem to religiously obey the rules ( remember the metric martyrs ) however many others pursue different policies and still look out for their own national interests.
One argument i've heard a lot from pro-europeans like the Lib.Dems is that it will provide a level playing field ~ but that only works if everyone abides by the rules and with the current level of mistrust and corruption i don't see that happening.

I did and still do think the whole "Metric Matyr" thing was a massive red herring.

The way the press reported thing you would think these people were being prosecuted for putting up prices in imperial measurements. This was simply not true, the prosecustion was for refusing to also put the prices in metric.

Now regardless of what you think of metrification the fact remains that now a large proportion of the people in the UK think in metric. And rules saing food needs to have it in metric are fair enough. I agree that if people want the measurements in imperial as well they should be entitled to them but not at the expense of metric.

The metric martyrs were just an example ~ i could just as easily used fishing/agricultural policies or open markets.
I was trying to say that here in Britain we tend to enforce all the laws/directives that we have signed up for from the highest to lowest levels whereas not all other EU members are as riorous in applying the rules

Yes, there are some serious issues to address.

The state of the commission, it's poor image and performance, lack of accountability, etc.

The lack of adherence to the rules written by the French and the Germans, by the French and the Germans, etc.

The entire question of pensions in Italy, France and Germany. (IIRC the main French telecom company sold its pension fund to the French government just prior to EMU, enabling the French government to meet the economic criteria but at long term cost.)

The cost of social benefits paid in some member states and the strict employment laws, etc.

However, these do not necessarily represent a barrier to a common currency.

I'm certain for instance that Mr. Brown's diplomatic handling of the breaches of the stability pact mean that the rules have now been re-written, tacitly if not explicitly.

As I recall, prior to the ERM, the interest rate in the UK was up and down like nobody's business. I for one would appreciate stability in interest rates, irrespective of the economic cycle. I and many others can ill afford the consequences of a significant hike in rates.

At least in euroland, the interest rate is stable and usually has been. While this is not exciting, it does provide a significant boost in many respects, even in a local recession.

Madent

It may be that the econmic control given by setting rates of interest do not offer immediate control over the econemy but the alternatives are generally to do with taxation which is not as easy to keep changing and generally has multiple reprucussions.

I feel that given the bad performance of the Euro zone joinging it may not be a good thing but I'm not certain.