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

>> People don't understand that a Federal state doesn't mean losing anything, which ironically enough is something that the USA could have passed on. <<

Not a like for like comparison Gradient. When the various US states joined the Union they had nothing to lose and everything to gain as they had only been in existence for a very short time. Even then it took a bloody Civil War to keep them together.

Donald

Well, why doesn't Britain start behaving like it is living in the present day REAL world and not in the past???

az

why does europe insist on imposing its will over great britain

what about ireland?

<>

Um, crazyhorse, the point is that Britain is *supposed* to be a part of the European Community. And so far it isn't acting as such. Imposing its will? You mean, asking it to behave like a part of the community it says it belongs to?

az

and nd why is israel in the european song contest(ive allways wondered about that)

Because Britain, like the rest of Europe, is populated with human beings. If it were populated with animals it would be easy.

Whoever forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

Donald

Donald,

Germany, France, Spain and all the other European nations also have a past. Okay?

az

seems to have no relevance, but Israel is part of the EBU- European Broadcast union, who organise Eurovision, as well as UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) and, for all I know,, all manner of other European groups, probably because of their long standing conflicts with surrounding mmiddle-eastern countries, Europe's associations are more receptive to them as "refugees" of a kind, I suppose.

oh i see that explains it

Azahar,

If you want to see who behaves as part of the community, just check up between France, Germany and Britain and see who has the most fines imposed for failing to comply with EU regulations. I think you will find Britain is way down the list compared to France and Germany.

This is just the latest. One of the reasons why Britain stayed out of the Euro.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1093227,00.html

Donald

That link is to a story about a controversial decision *supported by gordon Brown*.

So you're saying Britian stayed out of the Euro because ministers including Gordon brown, our own Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided against impoosing a fine?

we are meant nt to be granted a referendum before we get lumbered with the euro...o...i for one shall vote to keep the pound just as the swedes opted out.keep the bundesbank out if you please

Sorry Donald,

As you may know, I teach English here in Spain. Some of my students are bank executives. We have been through various newspaper articles from British papers and otherwise have discussed this matter from a Spanish point of view.

I'm no economist, that's for sure. But I still don't understand the supposed 'reasoning' that Britain gives for not using the Euro as its currency as most other EU countries do now.

az

Egon,

No. The reason why Britain stayed out of the Euro was because they would have had to comply with Euro regulations when deciding economic policy and would have come up against the same problems as France and Germany. However, as France and Germany are part of the Euro, they have an obligation to conform to its rules. If Britain had been part of the Euro, Gordon Brown would have had the same problems with his last budget.

Gordon Brown agreed because of the principal of individual countries setting there own economic policies, not the bureaucrats of Brussels. A principal best observed by staying out of the Euro. He could hardly have agreed to a fine when Germany and France where doing exactly what he was doing. The difference is, Gordon Brown only has the British electorate to worry about.

Donald

Azahar,

The simple answer is economic freedom. Freedom to decide you own budget.

Recently The Republic of Ireland wanted to raise interest rates because its economy was booming and needed higher interest rates. They couldn't because the rest of Europe wasn't doing so well and required lower interest rates. Consequently, Ireland couldn't capitalise on its booming economy as well as it might have done.

The Euro is an experiment. If it works, it will be great. If it fails it will be a disaster. Germany's economy is suffered because of its membership of the Euro. If you were to hold a Euro referendum in Germany know, there would not be many people voting for it. But that wont happen, once you are in you are in and theres no going back.

From a Spanish point of view, the Euro probably is a good thing. But Spain's economy is totally different than that of Britain, France and Germany. Italy and Greece are different again. All with their own individual requirements. Trying to combine all that into a single economic policy is a dogs dinner.

Donald

the bundesbank has too much control fot my my liking...i don't like the idea of a german banker handling my money...my personal view

"Whoever forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

Donald"

In the past, notably pre-Empire, Britain spent an awful lot of time being deeply involved in Europe. Britain was European. Britain forgot this.

I don't know about the UK 'punching below its weight since Agincourt'. I'm not even sure what that means.

Besides, Agincourt wasn't won by the Brits, it was a dangerous and pointless military adventure lost by the French who could, had they been just a smidgeon less arrogant and a bit more patient, have waited until the bowmen of England dropped dead from the disease that was rife in Henry's army. Henry V wasted lives and money, neither of which he could afford, seeking to dominate Europe because of wounded pride or the ill-advised attempt to become something he wasn't: a leading light of Europe.

Are we seeing anything familiar?

Most of that Tudor (and prior to them Plantagenet) nonsense was all about Britain NOT being an important country unless it owned large parts of France...which WAS somewhere important.

"Not a like for like comparison Gradient. When the various US states joined the Union they had nothing to lose and everything to gain as they had only been in existence for a very short time. Even then it took a bloody Civil War to keep them together."

At least a part of the issue that the Civil War was fought over was State's Rights, which would be the right for a State to make its own laws and determine its own fate. Several States decided that their right to make their own decisions was far more important than being a part of the Union and quit. This was deemed illegal and the Federal government was forced to take some action to return the wayward states to the fold.

That rift still hasn't healed, by the way.

The USA is probably the best example of a federalised collection of 'nations' that we've got, unless you want to count the parts of the world that the former Soviet Union hung onto after WW2, so while it may not be a like to like comparison it's at least comparing horses to zebras instead of platypi to protozoa. It demonstrates how federalization can allow a geographic area to maintain its own legislation, identity, traditions, values and individuality whilst being overseen by a single federal body.

If this can work for a nation as cranky, gun happy and fiercely individualistic as the United States of America it should be able to work somewhere with more practice at being civilised.

Donald,

<>

What???

az