Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Whirlwind wrote:

It should not have failed to be noticed that we voted to leave the EU (much to my consternation) so to reinforce the message THE EU NO LONGER HAS TO CONSIDER WHAT IS IN THE UK'S BEST INTEREST!
It is now the UK governments responsibility (though if you didn't like last years negotiations don't hold your breath). The EU is *duty bound* to consider what is in the best interest of it's members and it's population. That is their responsibility. May has stated that she will walk away from a bad deal, but be under no illusion the EU will walk away if it is a bad deal for them. There appears to be some notion that the EU should still consider what the UK wants. It does not have to at all; that is, again, the UK governments responsibility. The notion that the "EU is out to get us" is ridiculous. The only thing they are out to get is the best for their citizens. If you wanted to ensure the EU continued to include the best interests of the UK (and the special privileges we had) then folks really shouldn't have voted to Leave in the first place....

You seem to contradict yourself here, firstly you say it is wrong to believe the 'EU is out to get us' and then you say 'the only thing they are out to get is the best for their citizens'. Be under no illusion that the EU would not gladly walk over us to achieve an 'EU First' policy when negotiating the UK leaving. Their will be certain states that would like to throw a spanner in the works such as the insignificant Malta which last time I heard was dead against leniency to the UK (similar small states are available). Yes the EU wouldn't walk away from the table but it may be likely a 'bad deal' could be vetoed from within and so yes we may walk away from the meeting in response. At the end of the day these are bits of paper and if its hard Brexit so be it, we will work our way outside their shackles. If that does happen it will be the biggest uproar since the Japs walked out on the League of Nations. Of course the EU would have to consider what the UK wants as it wouldn't be a negotiation, rather a set of demands 'cough up X amount etc for your rights to leave' etc. I agree the responsibility rests on the government. In my opinion May needs to go in strong and demanding, we can't have another Cameron debacle whereby the EU had the initiative the whole time and basically gets what only it wants. Personally I think self-determination is more important than having a few shiny special privileges handed out by the EU as it is inevitable that other EU states would sooner or later renegotiate for the same, leaving us with more integration and less sovereignty on important matters.

Don't forget, it is in the EUs best interests to punish us for leaving.

It came completely out of the blue, and several other EU countries have parties in them who also want to leave.

If they make an example, they can keep their parties in line with the fear that the same thing will happen to them.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Don't forget, it is in the EUs best interests to punish us for leaving.

It came completely out of the blue, and several other EU countries have parties in them who also want to leave.

If they make an example, they can keep their parties in line with the fear that the same thing will happen to them.

The EU is starting to sound like a protection racket.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Don't forget, it is in the EUs best interests to punish us for leaving.

It came completely out of the blue, and several other EU countries have parties in them who also want to leave.

If they make an example, they can keep their parties in line with the fear that the same thing will happen to them.

The EU is starting to sound like a protection racket.

I think you could apply the term protection racket to any form of state or group, not just the EU; we have governments as they provide a modicum of stability, an accountable* institution who look to get the best possible deal for their citizens whilst protecting them from other groups. At a price (i.e. taxes).

Incidentally, has anyone here studied cartographic theory at all?


*supposedly

 Whirlwind wrote:

So you are making it up then (or fitting facts to fit a view which is just as bad!).

By that exceeding sloppy definition, whenever we consider anything not strictly empirical we're making it up. As I said, I'm making an inference, in the same vein as I make predictions about likely results of elections, consider economics, or weigh up an argument. I'm looking at the facts as I have them, considering the context and likely outcomes, and drawing a conclusion. As are you. Your own view is no less subject to that bias than my own.

Given that you are always asking for evidence to substantiate claims, I would assume you would demand the same of yourself. It also appears that this is assuming an inevitability of the future despite that things can change (say for example the French elections)?

The world could well end in nuclear catastrophe beforehand, but if you want a disclaimer requiring every possible occurrence footnoted to an opinion, you'll need to look elsewhere than Dakka.

There is nothing here that supports the view they will only start discussing issues before they have resolved the finances.

If you're going to try and challenge my opinion, please do me the courtesy of being acquainted with the basic facts of the matter, because you're 100% demonstrably wrong.

The Financial Times just ran an article on how Michel Barnier (the lead EU negotiator) said that he wanted it all settled before moving on to any talk of trade deals, and anticipated it taking up until December. I'd link you to the article, but if you have an FT subscription, you should be able to locate it easily enough.

Although as I pointed out it's always the first thing you want to discuss because it focuses the mind on what you really can afford and want. The misquote is pandering to a view "the EU is out to get us" and the UK are complete innocent of any mudslinging of which we are definitely not!

Errr...hate to disprove you again, but...When Barnier met the various EU representatives to discuss what should be charged, the figure did actually vary quite considerably. France and Germany actually wanted it to be much higher, to the tune of £11 billion pounds higher. One would think that if there no thoughts of charging a bit more than owed, there wouldn't quite be a variation of that sort of sum. Sky news has the details, if you want to poke around.

With regards to demanding evidence of potential ill will sabotaging things, the bloke you were singing the praises of a few weeks back actually said apparently that negotiations over the size of Britain's Brexit bill will be "bitter and twisted" (his address to the Brexit Committee in Parliament today). He also firmly disowned all the supposed implications about May the the press was running from his exit email, funnily enough. If the bill to be presented is going to be all fairness and light though, why would there be any issues? I doubt we'd quibble over a billion one way or the other right now if it got things moving.

Why is it, these are complex contracts and negotiations. This isn't the 1800's where you spit in your hand and shake. There could be well be things that the UK supports (through departmental budgets) that ministers don't even know are happening. There are likely to be complex contract clauses that need to be mapped out. It is not a simple task. It is by far better to get these all determined now than it over the negotiations because any things that interlink need to be identified first.

And...that's why the British government wants to deal with it all concurrently? Because there's a 2 year window? Rather than signing whatever blank cheque is put in front of them? Every aspect of leaving the EU is an administrative clusterfeth, there's no reason this one should be any different, and no reason it should be No.1 on the priority queue, coming ahead of absolutely everything else. Better it's considered over a longer period, fully investigated, discussed, and agreed upon amicably.

Not really knowledge, more there is an apparent lack of experience in dealing with complex contract and business negotiations. You can read as many books as you want, review the historical context but that really does not prepare you for the thin end of the wedge when it comes to the actual contract/business negotiations. ...

Considering I've quite literally disproved you on two points above, I really don't think you're in a position to be arguing it one way or another, let alone discounting the opinions of people who clearly read it more closely than you.

The funny thing is that I've actually changed my opinion slightly, but it hasn't been anything to do with what you've said. Reading Barnier a bit closer appears to indicate he thinks the EU administration/France/Germany's demands of excessive compensation were too likely to make us just walk away from the table altogether. I've also discovered a number of other countries are also apparently agitating and applying pressure to just hold the bill talks at the same time, because they want to move onto matters of relevance. The implication therefore being that those governments see all this fething around with bills as irrelevant time wasting.

It will be interesting to see which of the forces within the EU wins out, the big boys trying to pull out the thumbscrews, or the lot at the back who just want them to get on with it.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

You seem to contradict yourself here, firstly you say it is wrong to believe the 'EU is out to get us' and then you say 'the only thing they are out to get is the best for their citizens'. Be under no illusion that the EU would not gladly walk over us to achieve an 'EU First' policy when negotiating the UK leaving.

That's a misreading of the situation. It's completely different to say that they are "out to get us" because it implies that they will try and make the situation worse for us regardless of the cost to the EU. Working on behalf of their citizens means that they will try and get the best for EU. That does not necessarily mean that there can't be areas of mutual agreement (lets say they want our cars for example and we want to sell them). However they might decide that free trade on food is not in their best interest and so on and hence we have to accept tariffs on selling it (this isn't "they are out to get us", even if it massively impacts on the farming industry). Sacrifices will have to be made on both sides because both are working their own interests (whereas before the interests were co-joined).

Sentinel1 wrote:You seem to contradict yourself here, firstly you say it is wrong to believe the 'EU is out to get us' and then you say 'the only thing they are out to get is the best for their citizens'.

Seem being the operative word. Pro EU doesn't have to mean against UK. A deal might be good for both and it would fulfil the criterium of pro EU but not anti UK. If, on the other hand, a deal were good for the UK but bad for the EU then they would not want it because it's bad for the EU, not because it's good for the UK. Why should they accept a bad deal? The EU is not some UK charity, especially after the UK leaves the EU. If they could get a good deal for the EU with bad consequences for the UK then the EU doesn't have to care about the UK anymore because the UK left, or wants to leave (depends on which point in time you are arguing from), the EU and doesn't want to be part of the EU anymore.

As the stability/existence of the EU is what EU bureaucrats are working for, the needs of the UK (as a non-member) are very low on their list of priorities. This also means worse deals for the UK than when being part of the EU. Countries are part of the EU for certain benefits and not just for the fancy flag and as the UK doesn't want these benefits (and disadvantage) it won't get them anymore. Why should they talk nice about the UK and treat it with velvet gloves when parts of the UK talked gak about the EU while being part of it? It looks like somebody can dish out but can't take it.

Of course they're out to get us, EU leaders have said as much. They need to make an example of us to deter other member states from also leaving. Its in the EU's interests to make sure Brexit is not a success.

That is why it was a good idea to decide to leave.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is why it was a good idea to decide to leave.

Eh...I don't know if I'd ever describe it as a good idea. The EU is good in a lot of ways, and I really wish some Brexiters could see that it isn't the great Satan.

But by the same token, some people just white knight the EU to the extreme, and literally cannot conceive of there being good logical reasons to not line up in the EU stable.

Frankly, I just want us to get on with it, leave, sign a nice new trade agreement that works for everyone, and have friendly, happy relations with the EU and everyone in it. Maybe what some say will come true and we'll rejoin, maybe we'll be fine and won't. The amount of vitriol and mute incomprehension by both sides really does get quite tiring though.

I can't help but feel that people get too attached to politics.

The Brexit campaign was based on the promise that we are all going to be a lot better off outside the EU.

Now you are saying the EU is going to feth our gak up. If you knew that, why did you think it was a good idea to Leave?

 Ketara wrote:


By that exceeding sloppy definition, whenever we consider anything not strictly empirical we're making it up. As I said, I'm making an inference, in the same vein as I make predictions about likely results of elections, consider economics, or weigh up an argument. I'm looking at the facts as I have them, considering the context and likely outcomes, and drawing a conclusion. As are you. Your own view is no less subject to that bias than my own.

Not really, I'd say that dislike of the EU is tarnishing the judgement. You are making the inference that they are out to give us a bad deal and that is why we should be getting out the EU. So where is the evidence they are giving us a bad deal (they have said they wanted to talk finances first, which is reasonable). Where is the evidence we have previously had a bad deal from the EU in a manner that was deliberately trying to hold back the UK? Where is the evidence that getting out of the EU will mean we get a better deal from the EU? You are taking soundbites rather than real evidence and insisting the EU has it in for us.

The world could well end in nuclear catastrophe beforehand, but if you want a disclaimer requiring every possible occurrence footnoted to an opinion, you'll need to look elsewhere than Dakka.

You've generally opposed stating anything categorically as being the future because it is yet to happen, yet you are happy to provide the privilege to yourself and imply the EU will inevitably try and give us a bad deal regardless. I'm only asking that you treat others as you treat yourself really.

If you're going to try and challenge my opinion, please do me the courtesy of being acquainted with the basic facts of the matter, because you're 100% demonstrably wrong.

The Financial Times just ran an article on how Michel Barnier (the lead EU negotiator) said that he wanted it all settled before moving on to any talk of trade deals, and anticipated it taking up until December. I'd link you to the article, but if you have an FT subscription, you should be able to locate it easily enough.

So what? Firstly I specifically noted that I stated "there is nothing here" in reference to the particular quote I provided, because we were talking specifically talking about the Juncker article. Secondly I didn't say "trade deals" I said "issues" (which can mean NI border, free movement and so on). Before you accuse me of being factually incorrect might I request you actually read what is being stated first? You are misreading what is being written as a way of discrediting the statements but by doing so you are the one "not acquainting yourself with the basic facts" of the conversation. However regardless, I've pointed out before that talking about finances first is a good idea because that allows both parties to understand what is and isn't acceptable from a cost perspective. That's not a bad thing by the EU, it probably just shows they are more competent at business negotiating than we are!

With regards to demanding evidence of potential ill will sabotaging things, the bloke you were singing the praises of a few weeks back actually said apparently that negotiations over the size of Britain's Brexit bill will be "bitter and twisted" (his address to the Brexit Committee in Parliament today). He also firmly disowned all the supposed implications about May the the press was running from his exit email, funnily enough. If the bill to be presented is going to be all fairness and light though, why would there be any issues? I doubt we'd quibble over a billion one way or the other right now if it got things moving.

What has this got to do with anything the EU has said? This is our own people isn't it (the person you are referring to is a bit vague. I think I know what you are referring to, but I'm not sure whether you are trying to catch me out if I assume the wrong thing).

And...that's why the British government wants to deal with it all concurrently? Because there's a 2 year window? Rather than signing whatever blank cheque is put in front of them? Every aspect of leaving the EU is an administrative clusterfeth, there's no reason this one should be any different, and no reason it should be No.1 on the priority queue, coming ahead of absolutely everything else. Better it's considered over a longer period, fully investigated, discussed, and agreed upon amicably.

No one is putting a blank cheque in front of the UK government for them to sign right now. The UK is in the process of breaking agreements/contracts and there will be cost implications to this. As I pointed out some will be mandatory, some will be optional. The UK may decide to keep some of them and for the mandatory ones might ask for the EU to prove that it has minimised its costs on others and so on. You agree this upfront because then you know reasonably what the overall costs are going to be - if you aren't willing to pay the ITER contributions there is no point discussing the issues so it can be put to one side. By doing it this way you concentrate on the negotiating areas that both parties want to talk over rather than all of them. Otherwise you can find you talk over the ITER issues, for example, get an agreement sorted and then someone presents the cost and one or the other party balks and decides not to go ahead with it. It becomes a massive waste of time and resources.

Considering I've quite literally disproved you on two points above, I really don't think you're in a position to be arguing it one way or another, let alone discounting the opinions of people who clearly read it more closely than you.

Well if you consider misreading and misrepresenting what was said then I suppose you are correct that you have disproved everything with your "alternative facts"! But then "alternative facts" don't really prove anything...

The funny thing is that I've actually changed my opinion slightly, but it hasn't been anything to do with what you've said. Reading Barnier a bit closer appears to indicate he thinks the EU administration/France/Germany's demands of excessive compensation were too likely to make us just walk away from the table altogether. I've also discovered a number of other countries are also apparently agitating and applying pressure to just hold the bill talks at the same time, because they want to move onto matters of relevance. The implication therefore being that those governments see all this fething around with bills as irrelevant time wasting.

Well at least I got you to think about it harder! It is not a surprise that the EU/France/Germany think the bills should be higher. The costs to those countries are higher (for example the UK paying for a road in Romania is likely to be cheaper than in Germany). As such the more expensive countries are likely to request higher compensation. The reality is that the "bills" will end up being a mix depending on where the operations/contracts are. It will be for the UK to challenge if they think they are too high. Germany/France/EU have it right - you always undertake the finances first, as a broad analogy, if you were buying a house you work out how much you can spend first before worrying about what curtains you will need.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is why it was a good idea to decide to leave.

It was a bad idea to create the EU in the first place. And the Euro.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Not really, I'd say that dislike of the EU is tarnishing the judgement.

That's an inference right there.

You are making the inference that they are out to give us a bad deal and that is why we should be getting out the EU.o where is the evidence they are giving us a bad deal (they have said they wanted to talk finances first, which is reasonable). Where is the evidence we have previously had a bad deal from the EU in a manner that was deliberately trying to hold back the UK? Where is the evidence that getting out of the EU will mean we get a better deal from the EU? You are taking soundbites rather than real evidence and insisting the EU has it in for us.

If I'd ever said any such thing, you might be onto something. Not sure who you're arguing with really. All I said that was that the way that they're approaching the whole affair of Brexit (with a certain air of vindictiveness) is making think voting to leave probably was the right call. Because I don't like bullies.

Not much more to it than that really. Never said anything about previous bad deals, or getting out will give us a 'good deal' (over what I don't know, you've kind of gone off on one here).

You've generally opposed stating anything categorically as being the future because it is yet to happen, yet you are happy to provide the privilege to yourself and imply the EU will inevitably try and give us a bad deal regardless. I'm only asking that you treat others as you treat yourself really.

Not really. Context is important. Since it seems to have passed you by, there's statements (i.e. the world is going to be taken over by meerkats, the EU is going to collapse, Brexit is going to be a disaster, etcetc) which are huge generalistic statements about the distant future. And there's other statements (e.g. I will likely have fish for dinner next week, I think the Labour Party will have future troubles due to identity issues, some negotiations taking place in the next six months will likely resolve in a certain way) which are somewhat more tangible. Occasionally the two intersect, but the more that they do, the more evidence is generally required.

One is vague and impossible to know. The other is reasonable to have an opinion on. The more they cross, the more evidence is required for it to be a reasonable belief. Comprende?

So what? Firstly I specifically noted that I stated "there is nothing here" in reference to the particular quote I provided, because we were talking specifically talking about the Juncker article.

I wasn't. That was you and somebody else. I never linked to it or mentioned it. I just vaguely alluded to the stuff that spews out of Juncker's mouth these days when replying to somebody else altogether. Christ knows there's enough of it.

Secondly I didn't say "trade deals" I said "issues" (which can mean NI border, free movement and so on). Before you accuse me of being factually incorrect might I request you actually read what is being stated first? You are misreading what is being written as a way of discrediting the statements but by doing so you are the one "not acquainting yourself with the basic facts" of the conversation.

The irony of you saying this after mentioning an article I never referenced and couldn't care less about is not lost on me. I'm literally sitting here watching you argue with some phantom on the wall you think is me.

What has this got to do with anything the EU has said? This is our own people isn't it (the person you are referring to is a bit vague. I think I know what you are referring to, but I'm not sure whether you are trying to catch me out if I assume the wrong thing).

Errr....it was some of the evidence you were demanding? That they are likely trying to get us to pay more than we should? Because, you know, if they were asking for a fair amount from us, it is likely we'd have no issues in paying for it, and there'd be no need for all the "bitterness" and general ill-feeling over the wrangling he mentioned?

I mean, you're free to argue that we're the ones who'd be wrangling and getting all bitter over a fair sum, but historically speaking, the UK Government tends to pay its bills. Even prides itself on it. The Daily Mail will likely gnash its teeth that we pay anything, but they're not exactly running the country.

Either way, it was part of the evidence I'm using for my later inference (which is nothing more than an opinion, as I keep repeating). So...yeah. If I give you the evidence you're asking for and you demand to know what it's there for, I'm on a bit of a highway to nowhere really.

No one is putting a blank cheque in front of the UK government for them to sign right now. The UK is in the process of breaking agreements/contracts and there will be cost implications to this. As I pointed out some will be mandatory, some will be optional. The UK may decide to keep some of them and for the mandatory ones might ask for the EU to prove that it has minimised its costs on others and so on. You agree this upfront because then you know reasonably what the overall costs are going to be - if you aren't willing to pay the ITER contributions there is no point discussing the issues so it can be put to one side. By doing it this way you concentrate on the negotiating areas that both parties want to talk over rather than all of them. Otherwise you can find you talk over the ITER issues, for example, get an agreement sorted and then someone presents the cost and one or the other party balks and decides not to go ahead with it. It becomes a massive waste of time and resources.

I disagree. And it would appear the governments of several countries do also. But you keep doing you over there. Who knows? You might even be right. Unlike many in this world, I'm intelligent enough to recognise the difference between my opinion and a fact.

Well if you consider misreading and misrepresenting what was said then I suppose you are correct that you have disproved everything with your "alternative facts"! But then "alternative facts" don't really prove anything...

Dear Lord, throwing Trump quotes around now? Well, whatever makes you feel better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Brexit campaign was based on the promise that we are all going to be a lot better off outside the EU.

Now you are saying the EU is going to feth our gak up. If you knew that, why did you think it was a good idea to Leave?

As I've said before, I assumed we were going to take an economic hit. I know enough about economics to be aware that was the highest likely outcome.

But I'm concerned enough about the way the EU has developed, and is developing still sufficiently that I thought it for the best. Perhaps I was wrong, perhaps I was right. Who knows? As I said though, the general behaviour of the EU post leaving has begun to make me think it was the right call after all. Time alone will tell.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is why it was a good idea to decide to leave.

It was a bad idea to create the EU in the first place. And the Euro.

The Euro wasn't that bad, the issue comes by tying it to weaker economies as well as the stronger ones.

That, and the fact that the EU can't be trusted to look after money, like overlooking the fact that Greece was pretty much bankrupt before letting them in.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is why it was a good idea to decide to leave.

It was a bad idea to create the EU in the first place. And the Euro.

Because...?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
@tneve82 and sentinel1, your points are incorrect.

The whole of Europe and most of the rest of the world is now richer and more developed than it was 30 years ago, and 50 years, and 100 years ago, despite increasing population.

Co-operation to develop new technologies and build up poor nations, is much more successful than competition.

Yeah. And we are running out of resources. And Europe is feeding it's riches on 3rd world countries. Give everybody on the world living standards as Europe and resources run out. Boom.

There's...Limited...RESOURCES...IN...THE...WORLD!

Very simple basic fact. Now think about it and then see how that results into idea of infinite economic growth that would be required for your opinion to work.

Obviously a resource such as crude oil has a finite limit, and when run out there would be no more cars.

But cars continue become more efficient, and are changing to alternative power such as bio-diesel or electric drive.

We are also seeing Europeans and Japanese give up mass car ownership in favour of public transport, car-sharing and light vehicles (Renautl Twizy, etc.)

Thus, before the crude oil runs out, the private transport economy will have stopped using it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is infrastructure development. Europe is wired up using a 19th century model of electrical power and communications. In Africa mobile communications are being developed instead of wiring. They are more efficient of resources and are allowing even poor people to have access to useful services like online banking.

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is why it was a good idea to decide to leave.

It was a bad idea to create the EU in the first place. And the Euro.

Because...?

Europe would be better off without the EU for infinite reasons. Currently every EU state gets some of what they want, but because not everyone will agree everyone always has something they didn't get or don't want forced upon them as compromise. Without the EU each nation would again be free to do what they want which better suits their national interests on a wide range of issues etc. The EU has evolved so much over time to become the current bureaucratic monster when originally it was for trade. No nation can disagree with free trade but is it truly worth all the red tape that now comes with it? Originating in a post war/cold war environment it was good to have friends in one group particularly with shared borders and at the time further inclusion to keep friendship was a good idea, now several European countries are seeing a backlash against this citing 'loss of identity and sovereignty etc'. I you asked the majority of people in Europe would they want to be one Europe nation or their current country they would chose the later. Further integration won't work in my opinion as it has nowhere more to go. The EU is in many ways a modern capitalist Soviet Union, it is particularly beneficial to those states that are either small or Eastern bloc because it has helped build their disastrous economies and infrastructure at the permanent expense of other nations. Why should you rob Peter to pay Paul in the first place? Particularly when you know Paul will never pay you back. Without the EU we would see a more diverse and independent Europe of countries.

The Euro. I hate the Euro. Firstly it is aesthetically dull, boring and hideous currency in the current world! Now on to what I think matters... There was no need for a Euro in the first place, each country had their own beautiful currency that worked perfectly fine. Yes there would be more currency conversions but certain countries would have been much better off keeping their own standard rate against the dollar than down grading to the Euro, particularly after the financial crash. Any form of crash or depression will hit any nation with a shared currency much harder because they will take the brunt of failing nations such as Greece on the same rate. Speaking of weak economic countries the Euro was a major success! What better way to get a better financial rate than leech it off more successful nations with a better currency? I am very glad we didn't chose the Euro, I think if we had we would have been in a major mess after the last financial crash, not to mention the palaver of trying to leave the EU with or without your shared currency.

I don't even know where to start if you honestly believe the aesthetics of the Euro is the biggest reason it's a bad idea. You sound as though you're making a parody of your own position.

Issues with forcing different economies in under one currency? Sure. Greece cooking the books? Absolutely. The way the Euro looks? Please.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't even know where to start if you honestly believe the aesthetics of the Euro is the biggest reason it's a bad idea. You sound as though you're making a parody of your own position.

Issues with forcing different economies in under one currency? Sure. Greece cooking the books? Absolutely. The way the Euro looks? Please.

That wasn't his argument at all. He simply remarked that he considers it ugly, then went on to list the reasons why its a bad currency.

"Now onto what I think matters".

You're conflating the two in order to attack him.

Yeah, not once did he say that the way the Euro looked was it's biggest problem. He said it was a problem to him then moved onto the real issues with it. Which you seem to agree with on a level.

Don't put words in people's mouths.

Putting aside international relations for a moment

let's return to domestic politics.

Two crucial by elections today...right in the middle of a bloody big storm!

Turnout will obviously be crucial, but I'm predicting a Labour hold in Stoke and the Tories to sneak a win in Copeland, with UKIP's woes to continue.

I acutually came back here to briefly talk about the upcoming Northern Ireland elections. I'm hoping that the UUP and SDLP take over. With their efforts to create a proper opposition here (which doesn't officially exist in the power sharing system) they've shown that they can work together. And after everything that's happened the DUP have to go.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I acutually came back here to briefly talk about the upcoming Northern Ireland elections. I'm hoping that the UUP and SDLP take over. With their efforts to create a proper opposition here (which doesn't officially exist in the power sharing system) they've shown that they can work together. And after everything that's happened the DUP have to go.

I don't follow Irish politics that much these days, but there is trouble in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. And with Brexit negotiations coming up, and issues like border control and immigration to be addressed, these problems could not have come at a worse time.

 Sentinel1 wrote:


The Euro. I hate the Euro. Firstly it is aesthetically dull, boring and hideous currency in the current world! Now on to what I think matters... There was no need for a Euro in the first place, each country had their own beautiful currency that worked perfectly fine. Yes there would be more currency conversions but certain countries would have been much better off keeping their own standard rate against the dollar than down grading to the Euro, particularly after the financial crash. Any form of crash or depression will hit any nation with a shared currency much harder because they will take the brunt of failing nations such as Greece on the same rate. Speaking of weak economic countries the Euro was a major success! What better way to get a better financial rate than leech it off more successful nations with a better currency? I am very glad we didn't chose the Euro.

And that is precisely the point of the euro. It has seen a massive influx of investment on less well-off countries thanks to being in the same club.

It isolates smaller, poorer countries from short-term shocks, in turn making a more stable situation for their businesses to stay healthy while, say, the UK with their free-floating pound is worth now approx. 20% less than before Brexit. Bad prospects in, say, Poland will only affect the euro a little, in turn compensated by better news from Portugal.

Stability is a very desirable thing in economics, and usually the "not my problem" approach comes with problems of its own in the long run.

jouso wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:


The Euro. I hate the Euro. Firstly it is aesthetically dull, boring and hideous currency in the current world! Now on to what I think matters... There was no need for a Euro in the first place, each country had their own beautiful currency that worked perfectly fine. Yes there would be more currency conversions but certain countries would have been much better off keeping their own standard rate against the dollar than down grading to the Euro, particularly after the financial crash. Any form of crash or depression will hit any nation with a shared currency much harder because they will take the brunt of failing nations such as Greece on the same rate. Speaking of weak economic countries the Euro was a major success! What better way to get a better financial rate than leech it off more successful nations with a better currency? I am very glad we didn't chose the Euro.

And that is precisely the point of the euro. It has seen a massive influx of investment on less well-off countries thanks to being in the same club.

It isolates smaller, poorer countries from short-term shocks, in turn making a more stable situation for their businesses to stay healthy while, say, the UK with their free-floating pound is worth now approx. 20% less than before Brexit. Bad prospects in, say, Poland will only affect the euro a little, in turn compensated by better news from Portugal.

Stability is a very desirable thing in economics, and usually the "not my problem" approach comes with problems of its own in the long run.

With all due respect, this comments feels as though it came straight from Juncker's office!

Currently every EU state gets some of what they want, but because not everyone will agree everyone always has something they didn't get or don't want forced upon them as compromise.

This is called life.

It's the same from people all the way up to countries.

tneva82 wrote:

Yeah. And we are running out of resources.

Huge somewhat ridiculous generalistic statement alert. Sources required.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Currently every EU state gets some of what they want, but because not everyone will agree everyone always has something they didn't get or don't want forced upon them as compromise. Without the EU each nation would again be free to do what they want which better suits their national interests on a wide range of issues etc.

Errr....no they won't. When they sign new trade deals and agreements, they'll still have to compromise depending upon their own position in any given negotiation. Which means the bigger nations would probably get a better set of deals, and the smaller ones worse ones. They'd all still have to compromise to an extent though.

The EU has evolved so much over time to become the current bureaucratic monster when originally it was for trade. No nation can disagree with free trade but is it truly worth all the red tape that now comes with it?

Common standards are actually quite good in a lot of ways, if that's what you're referring to. Regardless, red tape it one of those things that seems to continuously pile up wherever you live, sadly.

Originating in a post war/cold war environment it was good to have friends in one group particularly with shared borders and at the time further inclusion to keep friendship was a good idea, now several European countries are seeing a backlash against this citing 'loss of identity and sovereignty etc'. I you asked the majority of people in Europe would they want to be one Europe nation or their current country they would chose the later. Further integration won't work in my opinion as it has nowhere more to go.

It will and can work. Countries get forcibly integrated and split all the time. The question is whether or not it is a) desirable, and b) if the institution that arises from it is one which anyone would want to be a part of.

The EU is in many ways a modern capitalist Soviet Union, it is particularly beneficial to those states that are either small or Eastern bloc because it has helped build their disastrous economies and infrastructure at the permanent expense of other nations. Why should you rob Peter to pay Paul in the first place? Particularly when you know Paul will never pay you back. Without the EU we would see a more diverse and independent Europe of countries.

It's not quite so simple, I'm afraid. When you raise the standards in those other countries, remove trade restrictions, and increase their wealth level, what you actually end up doing is increasing their thirst for your own exports, making it easier to buy yours instead of shopping elsewhere, and giving them the cash to do so. So the money flows back to you.

There are declining returns in such a strategy, much like quantitative easing, but to know when they start occurring relies on exceptionally complicated mathematical formulas I won't even pretend to understand and can't explain.

Yes there would be more currency conversions but certain countries would have been much better off keeping their own standard rate against the dollar than down grading to the Euro, particularly after the financial crash. Any form of crash or depression will hit any nation with a shared currency much harder because they will take the brunt of failing nations such as Greece on the same rate. Speaking of weak economic countries the Euro was a major success! What better way to get a better financial rate than leech it off more successful nations with a better currency? I am very glad we didn't chose the Euro, I think if we had we would have been in a major mess after the last financial crash, not to mention the palaver of trying to leave the EU with or without your shared currency.

There are many problems with monetary union without shared fiscal policy and overrides and many benefits. It all ties into interest rates, currency exchanges, exports/imports, financial policy, and more. I am glad we did not join the euro, as it has more issues I think than benefits currently. There is truth in what you are saying above, but what you're describing is really one of the more minor concerns over the whole thing.

I'll stand corrected, with the caveat that it doesn't make sense to lead with a trivial argument; it'd make more sense to start with the actual problems. I was wrong though.