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

I think that imposing something like the EURO on Britain could be counter productive in the long term. I have met many people from EC countries and they are very concerned about their countries identity. Britain has an identity as strong as France and Germany and THIS is the problem. Brussels is run by beurocrats who have not been voted into power. In fact in Britain we only voted to join the EEC, NOT the EU. I think that the British Government has Quietly brushed this under the table and hoped that the people of the UK have not noticed it. YES the EU system could make Europe stronger but the identities of each country could be smothered which would create anti EU organisations to grow in each country. (I hope I am wrong). Atypical example is an EU directive for britain to stop useing Lbs and Oz, and to use Kilos. This has realy upset most of the people of this country more than the beurocrats relise. They look on it as another EU rule thatis taking their way of life away from them. Why couldnt they let the old and the new run together for several years, the old system would eventualy stop being used.

Well! didn't I get out of my pram over that one?

Actually, your confusion points to a clearer picture than many other people's well thought opinions. OK, two cents' worth from the other side of the Atlantic (the Euro has a coin that's tailor made for this). As a preface it might be wise to note that I've spent about half of the past two months in Europe, and got a hands-on introduction to the currency when everyone else did.

It strikes a person, who has no real vested interest in the issue, that it's going to be frightfully hard to justify having different prices for the same item in a number of different countries, yet equally as hard to imagine that a Greek is going to be asked to pay for things on an equal basis with a German.

Just as difficult to understand is how a continent that is the cradle of democracy can justify having its monetary system ruled by a group of people most people can't even identify. Economic issues have increasingly become the key issues in most elections - what happens when the office you're voting for has no real say in the economy?

Pounds (the measure) and ounces are nothing - the whole thing will come to a head when you've got to order a half litre of beer, instead of the pint. Europe's wars have come to this side of the Atlantic in the past, and some of them have been started over a lot less. In essence, the tariff and economic union is starting to look a great deal more like a political one. The senses have been dulled by the 'bite-by-bite' nature of the Europeanisation of things; maybe it's time to consider how much you value your national institutions. If the Pound Sterling isn't an institution, what is?

One day, when the House of Commons or the Bundestag consists of a bunch of old geezers debating on whether dog walking restrictions should be enacted, and you're buried under taxes to make 'equalisation payments' to the poorer members of the Union, you might wish you'd have thought twice about who was issing your money.

There is a great tendancy for the media to build something out of nothing. The hype that is put on events, news, or fashion is of such proportions that a person does not know what the truth or the true facts are. I think that the same thing has happened about going into the UE. Iremenber inthe not too distant past when Helut Shmit was saying to the British public on TV "We need you in the EEC" and the British polititions were all jumping on the band wagon saying "Yes ! voteto join the EEC".IT WAS THE BIGGEST CON SINCE DECIMALISATION. And they are trying it again ! !

I do not trust polititions,local or national of all parties. As far as I am concerned they all have fingers in dirty little pie's somewhere. I am not anti Government, but there is an awful lot of these polititions being disgraced. How many are covered up and have restriction notices placed on them. This begs the question. How can we rely on the word of people who are supposed to be totally trustworthy but are not? This leads us back to the EU question. Can we realy trust our polititions to give us the right information/advice, or are they all on the take.

Maybe I am just disillusioned and more than a bit in the dark about the real stateof afairs.

Europa: The European Union

F19585?thread=98809?thread=

A558966

reply to the first posting: A lot of the power in the EU lies with the European parliament, which is democraticaly chosen(I think the elections were 2 years ago). And that was one of the major changes which took place when we went from EEC to EU. So you can't both argue that that was a bad thing and say that they are not democratic.
Personaly I don't think that a currency determines your national identity. If you need coins for that your national identity isn't very strong.
And the whole idea of the Euro isn't to make one single European state, it is merely to encourage trade both within the EU and between the EU and other nations. And to increase the Eu's importance on the world stage. And yes it also makes traveling and comparing prices easier.

...more for the two cents:

I agree with the concept that having a unified currency will assist in promoting trade between the EU partners, but this just may be the reason why it's not a very good idea. Canada has a free trade situation with the US and because of the exchange difference, Canadian products are much cheaper in relation to their US counterparts. Hence, one sees a lot of Canadian stuff in US stores and a resultant less US merchandise in Canada.

The same used to apply in Europe - the Peseta dropped and Spanish products were cheaper in Britain. Thus, you might buy a champion Rioja wine at a much better price than a Chateauneuf du Pape - a great equaliser, since as exports jumped, the currency got stronger and the playing field was leveled. (and the Rioja got more expensive) Standards of taxation, education, health care and a host of other influences are not the same in Europe - nor will they ever be, as much as everyone tries.

The national character should be embodied in more than just a coin, but often it's that kind of symbolism that embodies the national image. A banknote is exactly that - a note from a bank that they'll make good the debt. In conjunction with the central banks of the participating nations, the European Central Bank is charged by the European Union charter to supervise monetary policy in the participating states. It hopes to control the M3 (not the motorway) and thus keep inflation at 2% - in essence, there is little that the partcipating states' governments can do to participate in the control of their own economy. Since deficit spending causes a bump in the M3 it would rather seem that balanced budgets are in order.

Their mission is to bravely go where no one has gone before!

...a closing note - quick! who is the person that represents you in the European Parliament? Spending about a month a year in Continental Europe and a couple of weeks in the UK, I've never noted a good deal of coverage on TV about the goings on in that body - nor have I ever met anyone who knew who represented them there.

The answer to the latter is that no one thinks the British public care who their representative is, so no one makes programmes about it or bothers to publish the information.
Can you blame them?

Actually, this isn't entirely true. The BBC run programmes on it on BBC world (albeit at odd times) and information should be available in most public libraries or appointed info areas.
People just don't bother to look.

Britain could really make something of its EU membership but the nation is just so terribly apathetic and pessimistic about the whole thing.

It's not perfectly run and it does need reform, but if we're going to oversee that we need to get active. Sitting back and saying "This stinks, let's get out" is as unrealistic as it is destructive.

As for voting to join the EEC and not the EU, the EU was built up around the EEC, it's not a seperate entity.

And the creation of the extra areas of jurisdiction was a process at which elected British representatives were present and participating.

If you feel you haven't had a great enough say it's because you're waiting for politics to knock on your door.

The point about a German and Greek paying the same amount for the same goods is very interesting. Two broad scenarios suggest themselves. First, the German-priced goods would sell slowly, if at all, in Greece. This would lead to a demand for local equivalents or substitutes. Second possibility, prices would adjust to the local market. This could tempt many to do cross-border shopping, to the benefit of Greece and detriment of Germany. This would tend to drive German prices down, but not necessarily all the way. As they say in real estate, "Location, location, location!" The bother of moving goods and bodies around costs something, so some price differential could probably be sustained.

I am writing from the west coast of Canada, a few miles from the US border. For years, it has been common for people to cross the border to the US to shop for everything from gasoline to groceries (duties discourage larger purchases, like cars.) But recently, currency valuations and wild price fluctuations have made this unprofitable. As a result, many US border towns and strip malls that lived on Canadian clientele have gotten into desperate straits, some almost becoming ghost towns. (There's no specific point to this, just thought I'd pass it on.)

An interesting phenomenon to watch will be how companies (manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers) spin the pricing policies they follow. Will they make excuses for different prices or try to sell high in low-priced jurisdictions? Should be lotsa fun to see the marketeers twisting in that particular breeze.

The US - Canadian example is viable, since the number of trading partners that dealt in their own currency has just dropped a great deal. The point of the price difference is this: if a Coke costs 1 Euro in Germany and 80 cents of a Euro in Austria (just across the border) and 75 cents in Italy (crossing another border) - how long will it take for it to be 1 Euro everywhere? (clue: overnight?) Can the worker in Austria or Italy afford to pay the same price for things as a German? The programme is supposed to keep inflation to 2%, remember?

There was once a time (1976) when the Canadian dollar was stronger or at par with the US - whole Canadian industries were destroyed. So, our European cousins, many of us are aware of the trials of currency exchange and greatly fear the big economy calling the shots.

There are already labour problems with unequal pay for the same work in different countries - what's it going to be like when you don't have to work out the exchange?

I was happy to hear that the BBC has an information service for European Affairs - Deutsche Welle doesn't seem to, nor does TVE (TV España) - I watch ARD in Germany and they've never said much about European Parliamentary dealings.

The prices won't get equal overnight, simply because people won't be able to pay them in thedifferent countries. Demand and price are closely linked remember... And people were doing crossbordershopping anyway. As said by some Germans in the backlog about petrol.
And why shouldn't it work? The whole of the USA has the same currency, doesn't it? And you can't make me believe that every state is as rich and prosperous as the next. And the population and size of Europe is not that diferent from the US. The same goes for Canada. True, they didn't change their currency overnight, but in the long term it shouldn't matter that much.
By the, as a last remark, the North of Italy is one of the most prosperous areas of Europe, I don't doupt that they would be able to pay for Austrian-priced coke(or vise-versa).

Yes Europe is not much different from the size of the US but the US has one central Government, and that is the problem with Europe. It is made up of seperate sovereign states who have their own heads of state and economic policies. For the euro to work the whole of europe will have to have just one economic policy and a central budget etc, this is why people are anti euro not for any sentimental feelings towards an old currency but because they do not like the idea of someone they have no control over having control of their nations tax and interest rates. Mind you already there is not a single branch of the British Government that can pass a law without checking with Brussels first. Its ironic isnt The Mother Of Paliaments ending its days as a gloriefied Town council.

Well. Didn't I light the blue paper? My point was that there are many who do not want to be part of a greater Europe, and these people could pose a problem in years to come. How would the USA like to be joined to the 'United States of South America'? and then find that they have to take on a new South American Dollar. I know it probably would never happen, but what if? How would the American public react to this?

How about this for a great idea. Why doesn't every country in the world join together then we will all have free trade, travel, and no wars. Now that I have been a bit silly I think I should go for now. TTFN

The US is organised to be a lot more like 50 sovereign states than current circumstances might seem to indicate. This comes a surprise to most people, including most citizens of the US. Every state has a chief executive, he has his own armed forces (the National Guard – NOT Federal troops), police, and cabinet; each state has a legislative assembly, that passes laws to regulate just about every facet of life; and there is a judiciary to judge upon those laws’ interaction with the populace.

In addition, each state has a system of taxation and a treasury of its own. These pay for roads, universities, law enforcement, give aid to local schools, build public works, create and maintain parks – the use of state taxes varies from state to state. What these funds do not pay for are those things that fall into the limited area of the Federal government: national defence and the regulation of affairs between the states. At one time, states issued currency – in truth, they probably still can.

Most importantly, banks are regulated by the states – there are no banks chartered by the US government, and no bank can operate in more than one state – it can have offices (under certain circumstances) in another state, but fundamentally banks are state institutions. That’s why there’s no equivalent to Barclays, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, Scotiabank or Deutsche Bank. There may be a Citibank office in Miami, or one in Berlin, Toronto or London – but there’s not one in Akron, or Memphis or just about anywhere else in the US.

Although each has the same currency, the value of that money is different in each place, since there is no central bank. (the Federal Reserve is a lot like a central bank, but isn’t one) In Europe, there’s a central bank for the European Community – a central bank that has greater powers than the US Federal Reserve.

To address another comment, the US wouldn’t like having anyone else’s currency forced down their throats – in that I suspect we’re rather like our British cousins. To give up the pint is even more absurd – the metric system has been the only ‘official’ system of weights and measures in the US since about 1868. If there’s one thing we also have in common with our British forebears, we know enough to ignore a stupid law. Especially an old stupid law.