Euro Area

[Fragony]

It's a public secret that Germany is already printing new marks, only people who read quality media are left out of the loop. But last year a van all packed with German marks was robbed.

[Kralizec]

I understand Common Law perfectly well thank you. It is what bound King John to the Magna Carta and ended up costing Charles l his head after he tried to impose a ship tax outside the port towns: It was illegal but he proclaimed 'Divine Right', God didn't save him from the headsmans axe though. Where I live in 'perfidious Albion' there are common law rights that date back before the Norman invasion. In theory anything that can be proved to be customary since 1189 (I think) is held to a part of custom and therefore protected by 'common law'. On the continent they use 'Roman Law' which is top down as opposed to English law, the basis of which is bottom up. Do some reading...

Don't you understand that the people are the only the court though? You sound like apologist for dictators... God forbid you ever have power.


Not exactly. Or rather, this is completely wrong. You should do some reading.

"Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation. The various customary laws that previously were held to be binding in the countryside were superceded by what was called the Common Law of the land; i.e. previous customs were supressed in favour of uniform law. Which isn't to say that changes in society can't affect common law, but the point is that as soon as the higher courts set a precedent it's binding for the entire jurisdiction and until it's superceded by a new ruling - a very much top down approach.
And please, let's view Magna Carta for what it is. Allthough we can broadly agree that it was a good thing in itself, it essentially was a bunch of lower aristocracy forcing the King to make certain concessions. That some have tried to pass it off as what God wanted has no bearing on history. Such charters were fairly common throughout the middle ages. If you know what the words "Magna Carta" would translate to in English you can claim to be more knowledgable than David Cameron.


I mean, Ireland excluded, we've been more politically stable and democratic than most place in Europe for the last four centuries.

That's debatable at best. If you make a selective comparison with France, then yes, Britain/the UK would seem to be a beacon of stability. But even so, England has been occasionally raided by Scots AFAIK during some ages, you've had a brief period of illegitimate dictatorship (Cromwell), the legal King removed in favour of his daughter and a foreigner (a.k.a. the glorious revolution) and so on. I don't feel like spending the time an an exhaustive comparative research of the history of European nations, but from what I know I'm confident that the British tale of stability and tranquility has been blown up to fairytale proportions.

As for "more democratic", I think that a lot of European countries (mine included) introduced universal suffrage around the same time as you did. What you English people call "democratic" in the 19th century was little more than elective olichargies with fairly broad, but still limited suffrage.


We shouldn't need to elect UKIP in order to be consulted on a transfer of Power from Westminster to anywhere else.

Yes, you do. That's how representative democracy works. If you want to influence the Tory platform you need to become a member of that party. Otherwise you'll be stuck with the choices offered at the ballot, and your FPTP system will ensure that only the traditional parties have a chance of getting in power.

Which incidentally is why I don't think the British system is better. Allthough the USA could be described as having a more rigid 2-party system than the UK I would say that theirs is better. The two parties in America are fairly diverse in themselves - there are reactionary democrats in the south, and there are socially liberal republicans in the north east. Congressmen can, and often do, vote against the party line. In contrast, the UK has 0.5 party more, but British parties have far greater party discipline and less local input.


As to our economy being in "ruins" if we leave - your beloved Europe is driving the entire bloody continent into bloody ruin without any regard to the human cost of "the Project". The Euro was never necessary, nor was the Constitution, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the current deadlock results from the democratic deficit - politicians in Europe have created a situation without any popular backing, and now they cannot move forwards or backwards without ensuring their own political Oblivion.

I wasn't saying that leaving the EU would inevitably lead to ruin. I was saying that giving Downing Street 10 to either the UKIP or BNP would do that, and incidentally only those two have promised to get you out of the EU. Subtle difference.


The bloody experiment in imposing political change top to bottom has failed - anti-foreign sentiment has been rising in various countries for the last decade and is now reaching a head. Greece is actually ungovernable now, the Executive can't do anything, Spain is facing a very serious prospect of fragmentation, Belgium continues to stagger on without a proper mandate at the Federal Level, France has elected a man who thinks the rich will pay 75% tax.

Don't get me started on what's happening in Germany.

LOL, so now the EU is to blame for that Spain has a history of regional seperatism? And that Belgium has a 150+ years history of tension between the Flemish and Walloons?

Revolutions and civil disorder are far, far less likely to break out in times of economic boom and prosperity. The EU has its share of the blame in the current financial trouble, but that's it. If Catalonia breaks away from Spain it's not the EU's fault. Honestly, you're a smart guy, but the conformation bias in your argument here is astounding.

[Fragony]

Just a thought Kraz, aren't you like many europhiles mistaking the EU for a nation-state? As it isn't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not exactly. Or rather, this is completely wrong. You should do some reading.

No it isn't.

[quote]"Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation. The various customary laws that previously were held to be binding in the countryside were superceded by what was called the Common Law of the land; i.e. previous customs were supressed in favour of uniform law.

Wrong - The "Common Law" was created when William I sent his judges to discover what the law was in the land. Point being - it was accepted that English Law existed, the Justices were to determine what the law was - hence the part about the date and "existing custom"


And please, let's view Magna Carta for what it is. Allthough we can broadly agree that it was a good thing in itself, it essentially was a bunch of lower aristocracy forcing the King to make certain concessions. That some have tried to pass it off as what God wanted has no bearing on history. Such charters were fairly common throughout the middle ages. If you know what the words "Magna Carta" would translate to in English you can claim to be more knowledgable than David Cameron.

The suggestion that David Cameron didn't actually know "Magna Carta" is absurd - that was clearly a fake response. The Charter was pressed by the Barons together against the King - not the "Lower" aristocracy. You need to look up the English peerage. While much of it was about the Rights of Foresters and the Barons it also enshrined many important rights for churls as well.


That's debatable at best. If you make a selective comparison with France, then yes, Britain/the UK would seem to be a beacon of stability. But even so, England has been occasionally raided by Scots AFAIK during some ages, you've had a brief period of illegitimate dictatorship (Cromwell), the legal King removed in favour of his daughter and a foreigner (a.k.a. the glorious revolution) and so on. I don't feel like spending the time an an exhaustive comparative research of the history of European nations, but from what I know I'm confident that the British tale of stability and tranquility has been blown up to fairytale proportions.

I said "last four hundred years or so", didn't I?

Excusing the Civil War, we have manged several dynastic transitions without any actual bloodshed - James II's overthrow was a relatively minor matter. Even then, we have been at peace internally in England since 1688. France cannot claim that, Germany cannot calim that, Spain cannot claim that, Italy cannot claim that.

Find me a European country that existed in 1688 that can claim that - then we can talk.


As for "more democratic", I think that a lot of European countries (mine included) introduced universal suffrage around the same time as you did. What you English people call "democratic" in the 19th century was little more than elective olichargies with fairly broad, but still limited suffrage.

The Great Reform Act was 1832 - the Netherlands had a similar Act in 1848 - universal Male suffrage came in 1917, in the UK it was 1918

Table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

The Netherlands has had universal suffrage for marginally longer than the UK, but limited suffrage for nowhere near as long, and political stability hardly at all prior to WWII.


LOL, so now the EU is to blame for that Spain has a history of regional seperatism? And that Belgium has a 150+ years history of tension between the Flemish and Walloons?

Revolutions and civil disorder are far, far less likely to break out in times of economic boom and prosperity. The EU has its share of the blame in the current financial trouble, but that's it. If Catalonia breaks away from Spain it's not the EU's fault. Honestly, you're a smart guy, but the conformation bias in your argument here is astounding.


You're absolutely right - the EU is responsible for exacerbating existing tensions, the diometric opposite of what it's supposed to do.

[InsaneApache]

Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation.

I might be wrong but it was there before the Normans. I believe it was Alfred the Great who instituted it.

[Greyblades]

Find me a European country that existed in 1688 that can claim that - then we can talk.

Switzerland?

[Kralizec]

No it isn't.

His bit about Common Law forcing his King to do this or that is complete nonsense. I don't recall an English judge ever giving the King orders how to rule. It has become part of common law in the broad sense, but that's not what he said.


Wrong - The "Common Law" was created when William I sent his judges to discover what the law was in the land. Point being - it was accepted that English Law existed, the Justices were to determine what the law was - hence the part about the date and "existing custom"

The mistake here is that you're assuming there was some sort of uniform body of English law there to be found. As I said, the substance of Common Law may have been lifted from the bottom, but that doesn't change the fact that the precedents that were declared by the judges were then binding for the entire jurisdiction. If a higher court approved of the verdict, it became a precedent for an even wider area. Other countries in the same period had a remarkable legal diversity, and the same was true for England before Common Law brought uniformity. It's the reason why "conflict of laws" was a rich, developed field of legal theory in continental Europe while it was unheard of in Britian until the union with Scotland.


The suggestion that David Cameron didn't actually know "Magna Carta" is absurd - that was clearly a fake response. The Charter was pressed by the Barons together against the King - not the "Lower" aristocracy. You need to look up the English peerage. While much of it was about the Rights of Foresters and the Barons it also enshrined many important rights for churls as well.

He was asked, among other things, what the name actually meant and didn't answer.

British peerage holds no interest for me. I was thinking of barons when I wrote that, but I don't know why I wrote "lower". I stand corrected. The point was that other people had the power (and the nerve) to make the King concede stuff, instead of some romanticist fairytale that Englishmen have rights because of god/common law/flying spaghetti monster.


I said "last four hundred years or so", didn't I?

Excusing the Civil War, we have manged several dynastic transitions without any actual bloodshed - James II's overthrow was a relatively minor matter. Even then, we have been at peace internally in England since 1688. France cannot claim that, Germany cannot calim that, Spain cannot claim that, Italy cannot claim that.

Find me a European country that existed in 1688 that can claim that - then we can talk.

Switzerland. Can we talk now? (EDIT: darn, beaten to it)

I'm sure that if you do enough research, you can find plenty of German principalities that were untouched by Napoleon, barely noticed that the HRE stopped exisiting and were largely at peace until the world wars. Britian is only remarkable in that it was a large territory with above average stability. Even so, upheavals did occur, and how people leap from this to the conclusion that the British political system is inherently superior to all others is beyond me.


The Great Reform Act was 1832 - the Netherlands had a similar Act in 1848 - universal Male suffrage came in 1917, in the UK it was 1918

Table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

The Netherlands has had universal suffrage for marginally longer than the UK, but limited suffrage for nowhere near as long, and political stability hardly at all prior to WWII.

According to that table, France and Switzerland beat you by a long margin as far as universal male suffrage is concerned. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about here.

The Netherlands, politically unstable before WWII? If we start counting after Belgium's seccession I don't think so- and keep in mind that the general area of Belgium had only been part of the Netherlands for a couple of decades, prior to Napoleon it was an Austrian posession. There were some hot political issues here and there, but nothing special AFAIK.

The biggest political upheaval in Dutch history, excluding the French and German invasions, was the so-called Patriot uprising in Holland. It's difficult to dertermine how that would have played out since it was crushed by the Prussians - I don't know much about it; it was virtually ignored in schools until recently, presumably because of its republican nature.


You're absolutely right - the EU is responsible for exacerbating existing tensions, the diometric opposite of what it's supposed to do.

That is a matter of opinion. To me, it's akin to assigning blame to a movie or a video game for triggering a psychotic man's nerves and causing him to go on a killing spree. In my opinion the makers don't deserve to be blamed in that scenario, either.

Regional sentiments have fluctuated in Spain even in the good times. That Spain is buckling when faced with extra stress (an exaggeration, in my opinion - I do not expect it will come to that) just shows further that they don't have their own house in order, and that's not in the purview of the EU.

[Papewaio]

The proof in the British system of law would be best done in a larger sample set. Normally a very difficult thing to do with countries.

Oh look, here's one that was prepared earlier by Chef Colonialist. Compare and contrast he stability of British colonies with those of Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.

The biggest failure in that set of Ex-british colonial assets would have to be Zimbabwe. But then the flip side is India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Malaysia and Singapore to mention a few.

[Kralizec]

Or, you could look at the number of countries which have adopted the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png

I think Indonesia compares favourably with Pakistan nowadays.

[SoFarSoGood]

"Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation.

Wrong. Gavelkind was 'common law' in Kent long after the Norman invasion. The Normans were forced to accept common law based on Saxon customs. Read English legal history; law comes from the bottom up. This is why we elect legislators, something you appear to oppose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I might be wrong but it was there before the Normans. I believe it was Alfred the Great who instituted it.

You're wrong about Alfred - you're probably thinking of the first comprehensive Law Code: http://www.earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk/laws/texts/Af/

Magna Carta was the first page on the modern Statute Book - but the English were issuing Law Codes in English not Latin long before that.

Norman Law was issued in Latin - so the English couldn't read it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or, you could look at the number of countries which have adopted the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png

I think Indonesia compares favourably with Pakistan nowadays.

YES!

Just look, the autocracy of the EU was conceived in an area with Civil Law - but Britain has Common Law, we don't belong!

[Papewaio]

Or, you could look at the number of countries which have adopted the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png

I think Indonesia compares favourably with Pakistan nowadays.

Indonesia is a republic and an ex-colony of Netherlands. Compared with its neighbours it is not doing very well ie Malaysia, Singapore and Australia are all ex-British colonies.

Pakistan isn't particularly stable then again it's probably outdoing Afghanistan or Iran as places people want to live and is only being outdone locally by India which is another product of British colonialism.

[Fragony]

Indonesia has been independant since the fifties, it used to be a Dutch colony. Indonesia becomming independant is a very bloody history we would rather forget.

[Kralizec]

Wrong. Gavelkind was 'common law' in Kent long after the Norman invasion. The Normans were forced to accept common law based on Saxon customs. Read English legal history; law comes from the bottom up.

Chances are that I've read more about English legal history than you did. So again: you're wrong.

Of course the people had laws and customs before the Normans came, thanks a lot for pointing that out. I'm going to spell it out for you one last time: these laws and customs differed from region to region. The system of common law allowed for a uniform legal system by binding all regions to legal precedents. The Saxons did not have this system and therefore did not have "common law" as we know it today.


This is why we elect legislators, something you appear to oppose.

I never posted anything that could be construed as such.

Common law relies far more on (unelected) judges to develop law than continental systems. In comparison with civil law systems, the English legal system has very little in the way of statutes - i.e. law made by elected representatives.


Indonesia is a republic and an ex-colony of Netherlands. Compared with its neighbours it is not doing very well ie Malaysia, Singapore and Australia are all ex-British colonies.

Pakistan isn't particularly stable then again it's probably outdoing Afghanistan or Iran as places people want to live and is only being outdone locally by India which is another product of British colonialism.

I think I'd rather live in Iran than in Pakistan. Neither are appealing, though.
Indonesia is a more or less secular state with equality before the law. The same is not true for Malaysia. Any comparison with Australia (or Canada) is unfair for obvious reasons.

I don't see how any of this is supposed to prove common law is better in any way. Ex-colonies seem to always keep the legal system that their occupier left in place. Turkey, Egypt, Japan and China are countries that were never "colonized" by western powers and they all chose to adopt the civil law system.

[Sarmatian]

Indonesia is a republic and an ex-colony of Netherlands. Compared with its neighbours it is not doing very well ie Malaysia, Singapore and Australia are all ex-British colonies.

Pakistan isn't particularly stable then again it's probably outdoing Afghanistan or Iran as places people want to live and is only being outdone locally by India which is another product of British colonialism.

I'm inclined to believe that also has a lot to with how populated those colonies were and how much of a strong system already existed.

USA and Australia are mostly European immigrants. Those were vast, sparsely populated lands with local population living in nomadic lifestyle with little or no centralisation. Europeans arrive, local population is assimilated, exterminated or ignored, and it was easy for Europeans to set up a system, any system, and make it work.

That's a stark contrast to India for example, or even Dutch colonies in south-eastern Asia.

[Furunculus]

The proof in the British system of law would be best done in a larger sample set. Normally a very difficult thing to do with countries.


i believe that there has been a study of ex british and french colonies in an attempt to see which group exhibited superior outcomes in economic terms and political stability.

common law was superior, but by how much i cannot recall.

if sometime could track that study down i'd be very grateful, it was referenced in a book many years ago.

-------------------------------------------------

target 2 springs back into the picture:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/9580151/Why-Germany-must-face-up-to-its-1-trillion-headache.html

[gaelic cowboy]

target 2 springs back into the picture:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/9580151/Why-Germany-must-face-up-to-its-1-trillion-headache.html

That Target 2 thing is a myth though cos during a euro breakup you only pay for the amount of the ECB that you own.

Therefore Germany would be smiling and anyone with a trade imbalance with Germany is not.


The large imbalance shows quite simply that money is flowing into Germany from places like Spain, Italy, Greece etc etc etc in the form of bank deposits and trade.

The reality is that Draghi could solve any target 2 problem caused by a breakup by updating a spreadsheet in ECB HQ by deleteing liability and inputting the word asset instead.

[Fragony]

. Europeans arrive, local population is assimilated, exterminated or ignored, and it was easy for Europeans to set up a system, any system, and make it work.

Kinda sums it up. Not very nice of us.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Indonesia isn't really civil law as we know it, hence why Sharia in Aceh. It never was, certainly not under Dutch rule (which was never as strong as British rule over India was, for example). Also, Egypt was colonised by Britain (after it failed to pay its debts).

[Kralizec]

I've always assumed that Indonesia had a civil code- I knew about the sharia enclave but always thought that it was simply a case of a province excercising its autonomy. Apparently though Indonesia is a quagmire of different legal traditions, pre-napoleonic civil law being one of them.

Egypt was not a colony in the traditional sense, they never claimed to be sovereign over the territory AFAIK. In any case, the point was that they opted for a civil law system. The only instance I can think of when a country that's not a former British colony adopted common law as a system is Israel; and even that had its roots in the British protectorate.

[SoFarSoGood]

Of course the people had laws and customs before the Normans came, thanks a lot for pointing that out. I'm going to spell it out for you one last time: these laws and customs differed from region to region. The system of common law allowed for a uniform legal system by binding all regions to legal precedents. The Saxons did not have this system and therefore did not have "common law" as we know it today.

I never posted anything that could be construed as such.

You are WRONG! With laws based on custom (since before the Norman invasion) you cannot have a 'uniform system'. What is cusomary in one place is NOT customary in another place. Hanging of fishing nets in a specific place in a specific town is specific to that place - not 'uniform law'.

You also imply that our Judges make the law. They do not! They are bound by the law.

You said that our elected representatives should ignore the opinions of those that elected them... In what way is that represneting us?

[Kralizec]

No, you are wrong. (this is fun)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Medieval_English_common_law


In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies and reinstating a jury system – citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.


I was slightly mistaken in that the King responsible for it, though he came after William I, was not a "Norman". Everything else I've said is true.

On the point of judges making law:


Judge-made common law operated as the primary source of law for several hundred years, before Parliament acquired legislative powers to create statutory law. It is important to understand that common law is the older and more traditional source of law, and legislative power is simply a layer applied on top of the older common law foundation. Since the 12th century, courts have had parallel and co-equal authority to make law[47] -- "legislating from the bench" is a traditional and essential function of courts¨

[Fragony]

There is a difference between the laws of the constitunional monarchy and the nation-state you should know that Kraz

[Sarmatian]

There is a difference between the laws of the constitunional monarchy and the nation-state you should know that Kraz

Huh? Constitutional monarchy can be a nation-state and vice-versa.

[Fragony]

Huh? Constitutional monarchy can be a nation-state and vice-versa.

Can be, but it is a different thing here. Never underestimate the weirdness of the Netherands.

[Kralizec]

I have no idea what you're getting at, Frag.

[SoFarSoGood]

I also was slightly wrong about the proof of custom. I said 1189 so 30yrs out. The point is that Henry ll didn't 'make' common law; he recognised it.

Judges are bound by precedent. 'Law from the bench' cannot break previous precedent.

Apart from the modern reliance on Statute Law (and even some of that is challenged in court) the only 'innovation' to Common Law was the intriduction of Equity (which today deals with negligence, estoppel in the High Trees case etc) and the origins of this are more from Cannon Law and the Court of Star Chamber.

You aregued that elected Governments should ignore the opinion of the people. They cannot. Even today the West Coast line Franchise has been withdrawn following a threatened judicial review. Governments are bound by law - as with Henry ll so today.

[Kralizec]

Precedents can be unmade by the court who set it, or by a higher court. Statutes cannot be challenged in court. English judges simply do not have the constitutional power to do so, under any circumstances. They can only interpret them narrowly so that the scope of a statute is restricted. I admit I know almost nothing about equity; except that it's often used to dodge the limitations of common law.

Governments can ignore the opinion of the people (obviously, I can't count the times I've seen British people complain about it here), and in many cases rightly do so. If we decided every issue by referendum we wouldn't have enough tax money (taxes being unpopular) to cover a disproportionally large public sector (because expensive, high quality services are popular). Governments are accountable once - when they're up for reelection. They're under no legal or constitutional obligation to follow public opinion. It's risky to do so repeatedly, for obvious reasons.

In your case, your government - or rather, your parliament - has absolute freedom to do whatever the hell it pleases. There's the vague thing called "convention and custom" which can be violated, and there'd be no remedy. There are no written laws, no printed constitutions that limit what parliament can do. The only limit here is that Parliament can not bind itself to an irreversible reduction of power. And EU membership is reversable, though we don't have any real life examples of that - yet.

[Fragony]

I have no idea what you're getting at, Frag.

Simple, there are two sets of law, the law of the nation-state the Netherlands and the law of the constitutional monarchy, there is a little legal timebomb ticking as the Dutch monarchy is inconstitutional as they are not descendants of the the oranges, making all law signed by her majesty inconstitutional. That was solved by Beatricks by sneaking in the different concept that is the constitutional monarchy where she and here hatchlings can no longer be hurt.

[Kralizec]

I think you're referring to the distinction between staatsrecht/constitutional law (i.e. we're a monarchy, have a parliament, provinces and whatnot) and the other areas of law. Every country in the world has this, so I was confused about your statement.

Is this about that theory of Wilhelmina not being a real daughter of Willem III? Can't say that I care either way, they could be descended of Moses himself and I'd still be against the monarchy.

[Fragony]

I think you're referring to the distinction between staatsrecht/constitutional law (i.e. we're a monarchy, have a parliament, provinces and whatnot) and the other areas of law. Every country in the world has this, so I was confused about your statement.

Is this about that theory of Wilhelmina not being a real daughter of Willem III? Can't say that I care either way, they could be descended of Moses himself and I'd still be against the monarchy.

For the constitution the royal family has to be an descended of the Orange family. I don't give a crap either I want them all gone, but a clever lawyer can make good use of it. Any law signed would immediatly be invalid. The Dutch royal family has been extinct for a few centuries and Beatricks refuses to cooperate with DNA tests. Pretty big problem if you make one of it. Nobody dares, but it's possible.

[Kralizec]

Not exactly. The constitution says that the king/queen must be a lawful descendant of Willem I, the guy they put on the throne in 1814.

And lawful descendant isn't the same as biologicial descent. It usually amounts to the same thing, but doesn't have to. If a "father" knows a kid isn't his natural son but doesn't get the records changed to reflect that, they'll still be related in the eyes of the law.

I'm not surprised that Beatrix doesn't feel the need to take a DNA test. The controversy around Obama's birthplace comes to mind - he didn't show his birth certificate at first, because the birther theory was obviously bull from the outset (yes, I realize he did eventually show it)

Who was the last Orange descendant, according to you?

[Fragony]

Not exactly. The constitution says that the king/queen must be a lawful descendant of Willem I, the guy they put on the throne in 1814.

And lawful descendant isn't the same as biologicial descent. It usually amounts to the same thing, but doesn't have to. If a "father" knows a kid isn't his natural son but doesn't get the records changed to reflect that, they'll still be related in the eyes of the law.

I'm not surprised that Beatrix doesn't feel the need to take a DNA test. The controversy around Obama's birthplace comes to mind - he didn't show his birth certificate at first, because the birther theory was obviously bull from the outset (yes, I realize he did eventually show it)

Who was the last Orange descendant, according to you?

That is the difference I was hinting at Kraz, the law of the contitutional monrachy are not he same laws of the nation state. i don't know who was the last descendant he supposedly broke his neck when his horse aurevoired him 300 years ago, don't care either

[Fragony]

Oh, to just about anyone's surprise Spain needs more money. 40.000.000.000 of it. The International-socialism unsurprisingly reacts that we need more political integration with Brussels, they will be really sweet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Precedents can be unmade by the court who set it, or by a higher court. Statutes cannot be challenged in court. English judges simply do not have the constitutional power to do so, under any circumstances. They can only interpret them narrowly so that the scope of a statute is restricted. I admit I know almost nothing about equity; except that it's often used to dodge the limitations of common law.

Governments can ignore the opinion of the people (obviously, I can't count the times I've seen British people complain about it here), and in many cases rightly do so. If we decided every issue by referendum we wouldn't have enough tax money (taxes being unpopular) to cover a disproportionally large public sector (because expensive, high quality services are popular). Governments are accountable once - when they're up for reelection. They're under no legal or constitutional obligation to follow public opinion. It's risky to do so repeatedly, for obvious reasons.

In your case, your government - or rather, your parliament - has absolute freedom to do whatever the hell it pleases. There's the vague thing called "convention and custom" which can be violated, and there'd be no remedy. There are no written laws, no printed constitutions that limit what parliament can do. The only limit here is that Parliament can not bind itself to an irreversible reduction of power. And EU membership is reversable, though we don't have any real life examples of that - yet.

Governments are elected on manifestos though - every UK party offered a referendum on Europe prior to the last two elections, so the voters can't be accused of voting for the status quo.

I appreciate that you can't run everything via referenndum - but the signing of treaties and transfer of competencies are not "everything", they are a very specific thing.

[Furunculus]

That Target 2 thing is a myth though cos during a euro breakup you only pay for the amount of the ECB that you own.

Therefore Germany would be smiling and anyone with a trade imbalance with Germany is not.

The large imbalance shows quite simply that money is flowing into Germany from places like Spain, Italy, Greece etc etc etc in the form of bank deposits and trade.

The reality is that Draghi could solve any target 2 problem caused by a breakup by updating a spreadsheet in ECB HQ by deleteing liability and inputting the word asset instead.

yes, thank you for that, i recall the previous debate about target 2 from a month or so ago.

interesting - certainly too complicated for me to feel that i understand it thoroughly enough to predict the consequences of its unravelling. :)

[gaelic cowboy]

yes, thank you for that, i recall the previous debate about target 2 from a month or so ago.

interesting - certainly too complicated for me to feel that i understand it thoroughly enough to predict the consequences of its unravelling. :)

Well lets remember that if it was breaking up it would be in the midst of a massive crisis and would likely not be handled very well by anyone.

In short everyone would lose

[Furunculus]

what about if greece left in eighteen months time, followed by a lisbon 2.0 treaty that provided an enhanced cooperation 'core' along with an exit clause for those unable to submit to it.

an option taken by italy and spain in the years following.

[gaelic cowboy]

what about if greece left in eighteen months time, followed by a lisbon 2.0 treaty that provided an enhanced cooperation 'core' along with an exit clause for those unable to submit to it.

an option taken by italy and spain in the years following.

Greece wont be leaving anytime soon when there trying to put out a fire in Spain and Italy.

They would have to explain how you could leave and that would end up meaning Spain would have to go due to market pressure, so basically they wont be doing that.

The likelyhood for my money is that Spain will try to limp on till ESM/ECB comes to the rescue outside troika control.

Everytime I read about this stuff I just depress myself more especially when I read a moronic comment like this


All key parties agree in any case that EU-IMF Troika discipline in Ireland and Portugal would collapse if Spain secures softer terms. "Everything will fall apart unless the conditions imposed on Spain are extremely tough. Madrid should have no illusions about this," said one German policy-maker.

In other words there is a fire next door so were going to worry about what sort of fireproof materials the neighbours are putting in.

[Conradus]

That is the difference I was hinting at Kraz, the law of the contitutional monrachy are not he same laws of the nation state. i don't know who was the last descendant he supposedly broke his neck when his horse aurevoired him 300 years ago, don't care either

Frag where are you reading that? Your Constitution says that the monarch should be a lawful successor to Willem I, nothing about some Orange dude 300 years past.


Het koningschap wordt erfelijk vervuld door de wettige opvolgers van Koning Willem I, Prins van Oranje-Nassau.

[Furunculus]

Greece wont be leaving anytime soon when there trying to put out a fire in Spain and Italy.

They would have to explain how you could leave and that would end up meaning Spain would have to go due to market pressure, so basically they wont be doing that.

The likelyhood for my money is that Spain will try to limp on till ESM/ECB comes to the rescue outside troika control.

Everytime I read about this stuff I just depress myself more especially when I read a moronic comment like this

In other words there is a fire next door so were going to worry about what sort of fireproof materials the neighbours are putting in.

the eurozone is going to get smaller, it is just a question of when.

[Fragony]

Frag where are you reading that? Your Constitution says that the monarch should be a lawful successor to Willem I, nothing about some Orange dude 300 years past.

Constitution yes it does that's the point I am making

[Kralizec]

Then what is the other law you're talking about?

[Fragony]

Then what is the other law you're talking about?

The constitutional monarchy

[Kralizec]

That's a form of government, not a law.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a form of government, not a law.

He may be talking about "House Law" which defines succession and who the House can marry.

[Conradus]

Constitution yes it does that's the point I am making

I thought your point was that all the laws signed by your monarchs were unconstitutional. That is clearly not the case. So I don't really know what point you're making except that the Dutch Royal Family isn't related to Willem De Zwijger. Which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

[Kralizec]

He may be talking about "House Law" which defines succession and who the House can marry.

Those aren't remarkable either, AFAIK. They define the succession order, and state that a member of the royal house can't marry a person without permission of parliament, otherwise they lose their royal status and associated benefits.

It would be helpful if Fragony gave us more insight into what he's talking about because I really, really have no idea.

[Kralizec]

Governments are elected on manifestos though - every UK party offered a referendum on Europe prior to the last two elections, so the voters can't be accused of voting for the status quo.

I appreciate that you can't run everything via referenndum - but the signing of treaties and transfer of competencies are not "everything", they are a very specific thing.

At the risk of sounding elitist: EU treaties are preceded by intricate, lenghty negotiations. While I think that every adult should be able to vote on his or her representatives, I don't think that the average bloke has either the intelligence or the knowledge to make an informed judgement about these treaties. Or any treaty at all, frankly. The Irish voted down the Lisbon treaty and only voted for it after they got promised all sorts of opt-outs and garantues. That is simply not a workable way to do things in a union of 27 member states.

I'm not opposed to holding referendums, but they should be about EU membership, with a simple yes or no. I could agree to a two-speed Europe; but it's simply not fair that a single member state who refuses gets to stop the entire process for everyone.

[SoFarSoGood]

Statutes cannot be challenged in court. English judges simply do not have the constitutional power to do so, under any circumstances. They can only interpret them narrowly so that the scope of a statute is restricted. I admit I know almost nothing about equity; except that it's often used to dodge the limitations of common law.

Governments interpretation of Statute Law is often challenged in Court; it's called a Judicial Review. Basicly you argue that a Minister has misapplied the Law (like the West Coast line franchise). How on earth you can argue that it is right for a Government to ignore the wishes of 84% of the population is beyond me; you appear to be apologising for dictatorship.

It is not necessary to read all the various European Treaties and 'Directives'. Most of the Treaties have in any case been broken by the EU itself. At the very beginning of the euro they said there would NO bailouts... They make up the 'rules' as they go along which amounts to saying that there are no rules. They claim that you have to be democratic to join the EU yet the very people who propose all eu 'rules' are NOT elected. All this is done on the unspoken threat that to do anything different will bring about another war in Europe... So if Greece leaves the euro Germany is obliged to invade Poland? Far from preventing another war in Europe by flying in the face of the democratric will of the majority of European peoples they laying the grounds for a future conflict.

You can ignore the people only so long. The danger is clear and the clock is ticking.

[Kralizec]

Governments interpretation of Statute Law is often challenged in Court; it's called a Judicial Review. Basicly you argue that a Minister has misapplied the Law (like the West Coast line franchise). How on earth you can argue that it is right for a Government to ignore the wishes of 84% of the population is beyond me; you appear to be apologising for dictatorship.

Crucial point: misapplied the law. The law itself, as enacted by parliament, is sacrosanct. There's no standard that acts of parliament ahve to adhere to.

[SoFarSoGood]

Not so with Europe... Treaties are broken time and again but of course we cannot unelect the unelected.

[Conradus]

Crucial point: misapplied the law. The law itself, as enacted by parliament, is sacrosanct. There's no standard that acts of parliament ahve to adhere to.

The UK has no constitutional control on their laws? Ow, no constitution?




It is not necessary to read all the various European Treaties and 'Directives'. Most of the Treaties have in any case been broken by the EU itself. At the very beginning of the euro they said there would NO bailouts... They make up the 'rules' as they go along which amounts to saying that there are no rules. They claim that you have to be democratic to join the EU yet the very people who propose all eu 'rules' are NOT elected. All this is done on the unspoken threat that to do anything different will bring about another war in Europe... So if Greece leaves the euro Germany is obliged to invade Poland? Far from preventing another war in Europe by flying in the face of the democratric will of the majority of European peoples they laying the grounds for a future conflict.


The European Parliament is elected. The European Commission isn't, but then again no goverment in the EU is elected by the public. You elect the Parliament which will in turn appoint a group of ministers (most of the times those who won the elections, but that's never been a conditio sine qua non).
If you disagree with an Eu-act, you can always challenge it in front of the Court of Justice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At the risk of sounding elitist: EU treaties are preceded by intricate, lenghty negotiations. While I think that every adult should be able to vote on his or her representatives, I don't think that the average bloke has either the intelligence or the knowledge to make an informed judgement about these treaties. Or any treaty at all, frankly. The Irish voted down the Lisbon treaty and only voted for it after they got promised all sorts of opt-outs and garantues. That is simply not a workable way to do things in a union of 27 member states.

I don't think it matters - if you can't explain the treaty to the people who elected you it's too complex. The Irish voted the treaty down, yes, but it wasn't popular in Britain, France, or the Netherlands either. The UK is one of the largest countries in the EU - how many rejections makes the difference between "a few people spoiling it" and "lacks popular support"

Anyway - the key point is that if these treaties had been explained to the Germans and put to a vote, they might not have got through, and if they had then Merkel et. al would have the authority to insist Germany support the rest of Europe.


I'm not opposed to holding referendums, but they should be about EU membership, with a simple yes or no. I could agree to a two-speed Europe; but it's simply not fair that a single member state who refuses gets to stop the entire process for everyone.

So, just because a country doesn't like the current treaty, they should either leave or be thrown out?

If that principle was applied EU membership would fluctuate wildly.


The UK has no constitutional control on their laws? Ow, no constitution?

No - no Constitution, the Parliament cannot be bound - except by the sovereign


The European Parliament is elected. The European Commission isn't, but then again no goverment in the EU is elected by the public. You elect the Parliament which will in turn appoint a group of ministers (most of the times those who won the elections, but that's never been a conditio sine qua non).
If you disagree with an Eu-act, you can always challenge it in front of the Court of Justice.

It is the Commission that originates ALL legislation, which makes the parliament a rubber stamp revising chamber. In the UK, we elect the body that originates the legislation, provides the executive, etc. and the revising chamber is appointed.

[Fragony]

I thought your point was that all the laws signed by your monarchs were unconstitutional. That is clearly not the case. So I don't really know what point you're making except that the Dutch Royal Family isn't related to Willem De Zwijger. Which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

Yes it really does

[Conradus]

No - no Constitution, the Parliament cannot be bound - except by the sovereign

I can see where some problems come from then. Here in Belgium we have a Constitution to which every law can be compared by any judge (and a very specific Court). EU-legislation takes on the aspect of 'constitutional laws', meaning they surpass our national laws in most cases, yet they too have to uphold certain principles.
How does that binding the Parliament by the sovereign works?


It is the Commission that originates ALL legislation, which makes the parliament a rubber stamp revising chamber. In the UK, we elect the body that originates the legislation, provides the executive, etc. and the revising chamber is appointed.

Ever since Lisbon that's not true anymore. Parliament can come up with proposals of legislation and effectively block any proposal from the EC.


Yes it really does

How then? Your article 24 clearly states the monarchs have to be related to Willem I. Now if you could prove they aren't related to him, you might state that your monarchy is unconstitutional. What does the other Willem have to do with it?

[Fragony]

Nope, the constitution of the nation-state of the Netherlands is not the same thing as the statutes of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Dutch queen's position is inconstitutional because she has less royal blood than the cheese-royale at the Burger King. She knows that perfectly well and that is why she furiously refuses any DNA tests.

[SoFarSoGood]

Ever since Lisbon that's not true anymore. Parliament can come up with proposals of legislation and effectively block any proposal from the EC.

The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

[Conradus]

The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

Yeah sorry about that I was mixing some things up. They still have veto powers in the ordinary procedure though.

[Conradus]

Nope, the constitution of the nation-state of the Netherlands is not the same thing as the statutes of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Dutch queen's position is inconstitutional because she has less royal blood than the cheese-royale at the Burger King. She knows that perfectly well and that is why she furiously refuses any DNA tests.

Can you please come with any coherent explanation/sources/whatever for this? Because I really can't see what your point is. What are those statutes and why is your queen's position unconstitutional? If she is a descendent of Willem I, she is your constitutional queen. But you're saying she isn't connected to a previous Willem which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

What I get so far is this:

Beatrix is an unconstitutional queen.
She's unconstitutional because she's not related to the original Orange-Nassau family.

But your constitution does not demand she'd be related to that family, she only has to be a lawful descendant of your first king. So you have to argue that she's not. But that has never been your point?

[Kralizec]

I think Frag is talking about the "Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden". The Netherlands has its own constitution, but for the entire kingdom (including those islands in the Antilles) there is the Statute.

Even so, there's nothing special in there. It defines the King/Queen as Juliana and her successors, because the Statute was created after WW2.


The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

Even in national parliaments the vast majority of proposals come from the government/executive. Most of the proposals from lone MP's end in failure, at least over here - either being rejected or rendered obsolete because the government launches its own proposal to compete with it.

That said I agree it should be possible.

[Conradus]

Never heard of that Statute before but it makes sense.

[Fragony]

Kewl, extremist party's in Greece are on the rise, the international-socialism knows, for a fact, that the international-socialism is the answer. Nigel Farrage might be hated in the EP because he understands things better than a Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell from his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman. Oh so easily just dismissed and even fined because he understands things better than a Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell from his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman

[Sarmatian]

I don't think it matters - if you can't explain the treaty to the people who elected you it's too complex. The Irish voted the treaty down, yes, but it wasn't popular in Britain, France, or the Netherlands either. The UK is one of the largest countries in the EU - how many rejections makes the difference between "a few people spoiling it" and "lacks popular support"

Anyway - the key point is that if these treaties had been explained to the Germans and put to a vote, they might not have got through, and if they had then Merkel et. al would have the authority to insist Germany support the rest of Europe.


This is a fair point. Too many dictatorships have used the "we know what's best for the people" mantra, but it is also true that people never think long term and that they loathe to give up something now even though they will get more of it in the future. Kind of like asking the Greeks whether they want those extreme saving measures on the referendum - now, irrespectively of why it happened in the first place and who's to blame, the only way forward is saving now and more money in the future when the economy recovers. If you actually ask the people, they're gonna say NO overwhelmingly so the only way to do it is not to ask people.

It's a fine balance. Another example could be British involvement in Iraq. Invading another country and putting British lives at stake, with or without official declaration of war, is a very serious matter, something that may not have gotten support from the electorate if it was put to a vote, but the government went ahead and did it anyway.

[SoFarSoGood]

Yeah sorry about that I was mixing some things up. They still have veto powers in the ordinary procedure though.

The European Parliament is basicly like Ireland that if it says 'no' once, twice, even three times, continues to be presented with same basic law with minor changes to get a few more 'onside' until it passes, after which of course it does not have the power to repeal the law.

[Conradus]

That's a very cynic view imho. Too cynic for me. And the same argument can be made about national parliaments in our current democracies.

[SoFarSoGood]

No because back bench legislation is made... If the vote had been for a referendum on Europe it would have happened even though the Government did not support the motion.

[Conradus]

Here, if the goverment doesn't want something, there's little chance it'll ever get through parliament.

[Kralizec]

The European Parliament is basicly like Ireland that if it says 'no' once, twice, even three times, continues to be presented with same basic law with minor changes to get a few more 'onside' until it passes, after which of course it does not have the power to repeal the law.

Got any examples?

They can make their own amendments.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is a fair point. Too many dictatorships have used the "we know what's best for the people" mantra, but it is also true that people never think long term and that they loathe to give up something now even though they will get more of it in the future. Kind of like asking the Greeks whether they want those extreme saving measures on the referendum - now, irrespectively of why it happened in the first place and who's to blame, the only way forward is saving now and more money in the future when the economy recovers. If you actually ask the people, they're gonna say NO overwhelmingly so the only way to do it is not to ask people.

It's a fine balance. Another example could be British involvement in Iraq. Invading another country and putting British lives at stake, with or without official declaration of war, is a very serious matter, something that may not have gotten support from the electorate if it was put to a vote, but the government went ahead and did it anyway.

Yeah... invading Iraq.

See - lack of public support, didn't go well.

[SoFarSoGood]

Well I had briefest of searches for examples on these 'ammendments' and guess what?

"In March last year, MEPs voted to try to save at least some money by cutting the number of visits to the French city of Strasbourg to 11 a year. The man who suggested the move, Tory MEP Ashley Fox, said it would save almost £12million a year and cut down on emissions of carbon dioxide, which the vast majority of scientists believe are causing global warming.

But yesterday, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, a senior official, said that the move would breach EU treaties. Judges from the ECJ will make a final judgment in October."

[Conradus]

Of course your amendments can't go against the original Treaties. And to assure that, there is judicial control. It's pretty common in any country that has a constitution (or any set of laws that are considered above normal laws)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can see where some problems come from then. Here in Belgium we have a Constitution to which every law can be compared by any judge (and a very specific Court). EU-legislation takes on the aspect of 'constitutional laws', meaning they surpass our national laws in most cases, yet they too have to uphold certain principles.
How does that binding the Parliament by the sovereign works?

Let me answer this by example - in 2010 Parliament (the Commons and Lords together) passed a Bill which fixed the term of the Commons to Five Years, after which Parliament would be disolved and elections called - the monarch signed the Bill into Law.

So - not the Commons are elected every five years (unless certain circumstances are met) but the next parliament can (and quite possibly will) repeal this law by introducing a new Bill of repeal, which the monrach can sign into Law.

We have a Constitution - and the Constitution says that we cannot pass a Law which binds a future Parliament. It is theoretically impossible for the United Kingdom to ever have a Constitution.

Ironically, this does not pertain to our former Colonies because their Constitutions were passed by as higher body, in westminster, so their governments can be bound.


Of course your amendments can't go against the original Treaties. And to assure that, there is judicial control. It's pretty common in any country that has a constitution (or any set of laws that are considered above normal laws)

You have to wonder though - how could visiting one particular city less often violate an EU treaty if it were properly framed.

[Fragony]

Of course your amendments can't go against the original Treaties. And to assure that, there is judicial control. It's pretty common in any country that has a constitution (or any set of laws that are considered above normal laws)

Can, that is exactly what Germany is doing with the ESM treaty, investigating if it's against their constitution. If so they can reject it.

[gaelic cowboy]

Let me answer this by example - in 2010 Parliament (the Commons and Lords together) passed a Bill which fixed the term of the Commons to Five Years, after which Parliament would be disolved and elections called - the monarch signed the Bill into Law.

So - not the Commons are elected every five years (unless certain circumstances are met) but the next parliament can (and quite possibly will) repeal this law by introducing a new Bill of repeal, which the monrach can sign into Law.

Why would they bother though?? sure it's only fixing the length of a Parliment, the government can still decide to go to the people sooner if they so wish.


We have a Constitution - and the Constitution says that we cannot pass a Law which binds a future Parliament. It is theoretically impossible for the United Kingdom to ever have a Constitution.

We have the same and we wrote it ourselves that's why we had to have a referendum for the ESM treaty.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why would they bother though?? sure it's only fixing the length of a Parliment, the government can still decide to go to the people sooner if they so wish.

Not without either repealing said law or getting a 2/3 majority in the Commons - which is different to Tony waking up one morning and thinking the poll numbers look good.


We have the same and we wrote it ourselves that's why we had to have a referendum for the ESM treaty.

The difference being, of course, that because we have no fixed Constitution there is nothing to alter in the face of the EU, which allows the government of the day to avoid referenda.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not without either repealing said law or getting a 2/3 majority in the Commons - which is different to Tony waking up one morning and thinking the poll numbers look good.

Eh?? not sure I understand you here are you saying a Parliment cannot be disolved inside a 5 yr term

If Parliment can be dissolved then surely the law merely sets a maximum length which has historically been fuzzy in the UK.


NB maybe misstook my use of the term go to the people over here it means to have an election.

If Clegg wakes up one morning and decides to pull out of government then Cameron can only continue as a minority government, which likely means an election.

Even if you couldn't dissolve parliment on your own it will be no problem to get the 2/3 majority to dissolve a parliment as the opposition will vote for it too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh?? not sure I understand you here are you saying a Parliment cannot be disolved inside a 5 yr term.

That's correct - without a 2/3 majority in a Commons vote it is no longer possible to dissolve Parliament inside the 5 year term.

[gaelic cowboy]

That's correct - without a 2/3 majority in a Commons vote it is no longer possible to dissolve Parliament inside the 5 year term.

But sure the opposition will vote for an election so you will easy have the votes taking the government and opposition together.

[Conradus]

What's the problem with that? Our regional (Flemish) parliament can't be disbanded either. They have to sit their term of 5 years. It creates some kind of stability at least.

[Fragony]

What's the problem with that? Our regional (Flemish) parliament can't be disbanded either. They have to sit their term of 5 years. It creates some kind of stability at least.

I thought they had to form a governemt without hauling shoes at eachother in 5 years

[gaelic cowboy]

What's the problem with that? Our regional (Flemish) parliament can't be disbanded either. They have to sit their term of 5 years. It creates some kind of stability at least.

Because the government may need a new mandate if they were to enact something very radical.

It's not enough just having the votes in Parliment is it, the last Fianna Fail government should have called an election before anyone signed the bailout treaty.

if your system is not stable due to too many election then it's the voters fault for voting in :daisy: weak politicians.

[Cecil XIX]

First Scotland, then Catalonia, now Venice (http://rt.com/news/venice-protest-independence-rally-826/).

As reported, Venetian independence enjoys a 70% approval rating.

[SoFarSoGood]

The point is that any law made at Westminster (5 year electoral cycle or anything else) can be repealed in future. No law can be passed that is binding on future Governments or Houses of Parliament. In Europe the opposite is the case; the process is "irreversible", which a. insane as different times call for different solutions and b. undemocratic.

[SoFarSoGood]

Seems even 'Dave' Camerons MPs 'get it' now...: "Nothing he (Cameron) says on Europe is going to be believed. The promises that this time he is really going to kick butt on the EU budget are just window-dressing,” says a Tory MP. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/9593221/David-Cameron-at-the-Conservative-conference-the-seven-year-itch.html

[Fragony]

Happy ESM-day! First day 7.600.000.000 byebye

[Greyblades]

Happy ESM-day! First day 7.600.000.000 byebye

7.6 Euros? That's not so bad.

[Fragony]

7.6 Euros? That's not so bad.

With interest! My devious plan, screw back the EU. Have a bankrun in the Netherlands, the ESM will have to recapitalise our banks, than we deposit it back an leave the EU.

I kinda feel smart

[Furunculus]

the man with the (wolfson) plan is back with more;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/9592817/If-Germany-were-to-leave-the-euro-it-would-be-better-off.html

[Conradus]

The point is that any law made at Westminster (5 year electoral cycle or anything else) can be repealed in future. No law can be passed that is binding on future Governments or Houses of Parliament. In Europe the opposite is the case; the process is "irreversible", which a. insane as different times call for different solutions and b. undemocratic.

I take it any law is binding your future governments unless they decide to revoke it. Otherwise you'd have to pass every previous law again when you elect a new House.

Where is it specified that the EU can't make a regulation/directive/... which annuls/revokes/changes a previous one. Cause I've seen lots of changes to EU-law already.

[Kralizec]

The point is that any law made at Westminster (5 year electoral cycle or anything else) can be repealed in future. No law can be passed that is binding on future Governments or Houses of Parliament. In Europe the opposite is the case; the process is "irreversible", which a. insane as different times call for different solutions and b. undemocratic.

The only example I can think of an "irreversible" limit on what a country's government/parliament can do is the German constitution. There's a clause that Germany is a federal republic and always will remain so. (arguably, there historically was a way to legally get around that too, but that's a little to in depth to explore here)

There may be other examples, but they're not the norm. Generally speaking constitutions can be amended by a special procedure: qualified majorities, ratified by two successive parliaments, etc.

It is arguably more "democratic" in one sense to give whatever party has 50% +1 votes in the elected assembly a free check to do whatever they please. But I know which I prefer.


I take it any law is binding your future governments unless they decide to revoke it. Otherwise you'd have to pass every previous law again when you elect a new House.

Where is it specified that the EU can't make a regulation/directive/... which annuls/revokes/changes a previous one. Cause I've seen lots of changes to EU-law already.[/QUOTE]

Regulations and directives can be changed and revoked. They can't, however, go against the treaties that established the EU. I'm a little puzzled at what SoFarSoGood is complaining about here. He pointed out earlier that the ECB buying up government bonds on the secondary market is a violation of the treaty. I don't agree on it being an actual violation, but it does make me somewhat uneasy because it goes against the intent of the treaty. Apparently violations are only bad when he doesn't agree with the action.

(I agree that it's a dumb tradition to have the EP gather both in Strassbourgh and Brussels so many times a year, but it's a dumb idea that's inshrined in the treaties and therefore should be respected)

[Conradus]

Regulations and directives can be changed and revoked. They can't, however, go against the treaties that established the EU. I'm a little puzzled at what SoFarSoGood is complaining about here. He pointed out earlier that the ECB buying up government bonds on the secondary market is a violation of the treaty. I don't agree on it being an actual violation, but it does make me somewhat uneasy because it goes against the intent of the treaty. Apparently violations are only bad when he doesn't agree with the action.

(I agree that it's a dumb tradition to have the EP gather both in Strassbourgh and Brussels so many times a year, but it's a dumb idea that's inshrined in the treaties and therefore should be respected)

Well yes, but that's quite normal isn't it? Here we have quite a lot of laws that form the foundations of the structure of our state that can only be changed by certain majorties/procedures. The EU has the same imo, only is the procedure for changing the Treaties much harder since reaching those Treaties was such a hard task. So I don't consider this a real argument.

[SoFarSoGood]

Regulations and directives can be changed and revoked. They can't, however, go against the treaties that established the EU. I'm a little puzzled at what SoFarSoGood is complaining about here. He pointed out earlier that the ECB buying up government bonds on the secondary market is a violation of the treaty. I don't agree on it being an actual violation, but it does make me somewhat uneasy because it goes against the intent of the treaty. Apparently violations are only bad when he doesn't agree with the action.

(I agree that it's a dumb tradition to have the EP gather both in Strassbourgh and Brussels so many times a year, but it's a dumb idea that's inshrined in the treaties and therefore should be respected)

So this 'irreversible' issue... Let me put it this way: Can Ireland have another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? No... Once you've said 'yes' once it's 'irreversible'; and by the way it's not me that uses this word but the Barrusos and Rumpuys of this world who say the movement to single State is and must be 'irreversible', whether people like it or not apparently! Even if I 100% agreed that such a thing was a good idea I would have reservations about allowing a 'Government' that has not it's accounts signed off by auditors for 18 years to run such system.

Of course when it comes to changing the rules when it suits them they do it all the time... Under both Maastrict and Lisbon NO bailouts were permitted. Now the ECB proposes to buy government bonds on the secondary markets to any limit - once a country has surrendered it's financial sovereignty and of course surrender that and your vote to a 'national parliament' basicly ceases to count: The last Greek election was ONLY about electing someone to negotiate with the 'Troika'.


the man with the (wolfson) plan is back with more;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/9592817/If-Germany-were-to-leave-the-euro-it-would-be-better-off.html

I don't think RB goes far enough in this article. Yes he's correct in his analysis that the fundamental problem is the unit labour cost variance between the euro member states. This is the reflected in balance of trade deficits for Mediterranean countries but the balance of trade variances are caused by the basic unit labour cost differences; a symptom of the disease. In a normal system this would be rebalanced in currency devaluations so German exports would become more expensive as the Greek currency devalued and Greek exports to Germany become cheaper etc... Alas they are 'glued together' by the euro so basicly unit labour cost in all the rest of Europe have to catch up with Germany. Even in France this amounts to a 20% reduction in wages. As Merkel said "Europe must discuss the growing differences in economic strength between France and Germany". (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9335043/Debt-crisis-tensions-mount-as-Angela-Merkel-attacks-French-economy.html)

That is why Germany should leave.

[Fragony]

All northern countries should leave the international-socialism, for that Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell out his tree, his Portugese waitor and a german booksalesman this crisis is a great tool to further the destruction of the nation-state

[Beskar]

I think Europe allows for greater regionism and getter control of areas by the people, instead of a enforced nation state. There is a lot less hassle and trouble gaining independence through a European framework. I don't think Scotland, Catalan, Scania, Venice, etc being far more autonomous and independent as a bad thing at all.

[rvg]

Scania too? What's their problem?

[SoFarSoGood]

I think Europe allows for greater regionism and getter control of areas by the people, instead of a enforced nation state. There is a lot less hassle and trouble gaining independence through a European framework. I don't think Scotland, Catalan, Scania, Venice, etc being far more autonomous and independent as a bad thing at all.

Seriously...? Well I presume you are serious so let me give some basic problems (without going into details).

1. The old addage "Divide and Rule" ring a bell?
2. This is a bit more complex so let's take Scotland as an example. If Scotland leaves the UK what currency does it use? The UK is a member of the EU but 'Scotland' as such is NOT. Legaly it must apply to join the EU (same would be for true Catalonia etc also). Now if Scotland apply to join the EU they are obliged to join the euro - but even the hairbrained Scottish Nationalists don't want to do that; they sensibly wish to keep the £. That though is NOT an option...
3. IF you are part of a Single European State you may have broken away from an "enforced nation state" but you are already in part of an 'enforced superstate'; out of the frying pan and into the fire! IT does not matter anymore! Your taxes and laws all come from Brussels and are mostly 'directives' which you have to obey. You vote means NOTHING regionaly because someone beaurocrat in Brussels dictates where your taxes will be spent. Did you elect him? No. Can you get rid of him? Well there may be ways that will occur to some but they are not 'legal'. Can your MEP do anything about it? Only refuse time and again what he is asked to vote on... so no. He cannot repeal any laws or create new ones. That's it pal... end game and LOSE for you.

[Conradus]

Yes, that sounds like a bunch of hogwash.

The UK inns apparently about 570 billion pounds in taxes. They give about 6.5-12 billion to the EU. (Depending wether or not you take into account the VATpercentage that the EU has a right to and the rebate Thatcher got for you) Yes, the EU is clearly dictating where your money is being spend.

Taxes are an area where the EU has no direct say. The only thing the European Union forces member states to do is not to discriminate other European citizens with your national tax system.

[Fragony]

Taxes are an area where the EU has no direct say. The only thing the European Union forces member states to do is not to discriminate other European citizens with your national tax system.

Wut, the whole idea behind it is that they do

[Conradus]

The whole idea behind the Union is that you can't discriminate the citizens of other member states.

[Fragony]

The whole idea behind the Union is that you can't discriminate the citizens of other member states.

que

[SoFarSoGood]

Taxes are an area where the EU has no direct say. The only thing the European Union forces member states to do is not to discriminate other European citizens with your national tax system.

Who's paying for the bailouts? Taxes... mine (partly) and more tax payers in the euro area. How can you say they have no direct say? IF they get Unified State then they will have TOTAL say... not even you Prime Minister or President can 'veto' it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think Europe allows for greater regionism and getter control of areas by the people, instead of a enforced nation state. There is a lot less hassle and trouble gaining independence through a European framework. I don't think Scotland, Catalan, Scania, Venice, etc being far more autonomous and independent as a bad thing at all.

How is an enforced international state better?

At least most of the people in Italy/German/France/the UK can understand each other.

SFSG is wrong about Scotland - they would automatically succeed to the EU because they would "inherit" membership, but he's also right because as a new country it is doubtful they would inherit the UK's opt-outs, meaning they would not be able to create a new currency but would have to choose between pound and Euro.

The EU is an ideaological project and therefore a bad thing.

Anyone who suggests to the contrary, that politics driven by ideaology is a good thing, should go looking for their common sense because thy've clearly taken leave of it.

[Greyblades]

I dont understand scottish independance personally, I understand (probably imperfectly) that they haven't been treated all that different from english members of the population for 200 years beyond natural nationalistic ribbing over sports and the like, and historically scotland is probably one of the countries England's treated the best. (not saying much but still)

[Kralizec]

2. This is a bit more complex so let's take Scotland as an example. If Scotland leaves the UK what currency does it use? The UK is a member of the EU but 'Scotland' as such is NOT. Legaly it must apply to join the EU (same would be for true Catalonia etc also). Now if Scotland apply to join the EU they are obliged to join the euro - but even the hairbrained Scottish Nationalists don't want to do that; they sensibly wish to keep the £. That though is NOT an option...

Wrong, as PVC pointed out.

The problems of what currency the Scots would use is a relevant question though. They can't keep using the pound if the English won't allow them to, obviously. They could go for a currency opt-out like the British or the Danes. Wether that would be a good idea is another question.


3. IF you are part of a Single European State you may have broken away from an "enforced nation state" but you are already in part of an 'enforced superstate'; out of the frying pan and into the fire! IT does not matter anymore! Your taxes and laws all come from Brussels and are mostly 'directives' which you have to obey. You vote means NOTHING regionaly because someone beaurocrat in Brussels dictates where your taxes will be spent. Did you elect him? No. Can you get rid of him? Well there may be ways that will occur to some but they are not 'legal'. Can your MEP do anything about it? Only refuse time and again what he is asked to vote on... so no. He cannot repeal any laws or create new ones. That's it pal... end game and LOSE for you.

Yeah, I'm against that, just like I'd be against any plans the EU might develop in the future to murder kittens and to clone Hitler. Those are bad ideas.

Can you guys please stop throwing around these purely hypothetical scenarios as if they have any bearing on the presesnt situation? If you want to discuss specific transfers of power to Brussels, fine. Just don't use these inane slippery slope arguments that Brussels is inevitably going to become a centralized seat of power where bureaucrats will micromanage every detail of your personal life; arguments that are purely speculative and which have no basis in reality or common sense.

[Greyblades]

Can you guys please stop throwing around these purely hypothetical scenarios as if they have any bearing on the presesnt situation? If you want to discuss specific transfers of power to Brussels, fine. Just don't use these inane slippery slope arguments that Brussels is inevitably going to become a centralized seat of power where bureaucrats will micromanage every detail of your personal life; arguments that are purely speculative and which have no basis in reality or common sense.

If it helps, there hasn't been a country to date competent enough to successfuly maintain a orwellian dystopia, the European union cant even manage it's economy so the chances of it being the first are remote at best.

[gaelic cowboy]

Wrong, as PVC pointed out.

The problems of what currency the Scots would use is a relevant question though. They can't keep using the pound if the English won't allow them to, obviously. They could go for a currency opt-out like the British or the Danes. Wether that would be a good idea is another question.

Not true in the slightest since The Bank of Scotland already has the right to print sterling, the Bank of England would have no say except for interest rates.

Since Scotland would technically be using a one of one link it will resemble The Punt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound)which technically a separate currency was basically a green Sterling note. In fact the only time real problems were experienced with currency valuations or interest rates is when Ireland is in any kind of euro pie in the sky.

European Monetary System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Monetary_System#1992_crisis)

European Exchange Rate Mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Exchange_Rate_Mechanism)

European Currency Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Currency_Unit)

Economic and monetary union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_monetary_union)

The result of joining all these mad schemes has been the eruption of European sovereign debt crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sovereign_debt_crisis) in which the solution is to cut a forest down so a tiny weed can grow.


Scotland can easy get round the EU and it's love of Eurodynamite by making sure they have to hold a referendum on currency issues, that would be 1-0 to Scotland against the need to join the Euro.

[Kralizec]

Hmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

How quaint.

I can only assume that the Bank of Scotland and other private banks have the right to print pund sterling because an Act of Parliament says so. Which means it can be revoked.

Scotland could conceivably hold on to the printing machines and print them anyway; printing what is essenitally the currency of the remnant of the UK without their permission, but that wouldn't be very nice of them. I'd guess that there's a treaty against that sort of thing but I can't be arsed to look it up.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

How quaint.

I can only assume that the Bank of Scotland and other private banks have the right to print pund sterling because an Act of Parliament says so. Which means it can be revoked.

Scotland could conceivably hold on to the printing machines and print them anyway; printing what is essenitally the currency of the remnant of the UK without their permission, but that wouldn't be very nice of them. I'd guess that there's a treaty against that sort of thing but I can't be arsed to look it up.

I have to stop ye there kralizec they have permission so it's not a case of printing an illegal currency, they would merely be mainting a one of one link on the currency.

Scottish and Northern Ireland banknotes are NOT accepted in England as legal tender however they are backed by the Bank of England as legal tender in both those places. Indeed many Irish are often caught out by there bank or bureau de change where they arrive in England with Northern banknotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bank#Banknotes) and end up refused as I was in a pub in Cheltenham.

Basically nothing would change they wouldn't even need to remove the Queen from them.

[Kralizec]

...

The United Kingdom is a strange thing.

[Greyblades]

...

The United Kingdom is a strange thing.

That's what makes it awesome!

[SoFarSoGood]

SFSG is wrong about Scotland - they would automatically succeed to the EU because they would "inherit" membership

In an interview with the BBC, Barroso said he would not discuss Scotland's future within the UK.

"I am not going to speculate now about possible secessions, it is not my job. But I can tell you that to join the European Union, yes, we have a procedure. It is a procedure of international law," he said.

"A state has to be a democracy first of all, and that state has to apply to become a member of the European Union and all the other member states have to give their consent. A new state, if it wants to join the European Union, has to apply to become a member like any state. In fact, I see no country leaving and I see many countries wanting to join."

The matter is by no means certain. IF Scotland does not 'inherit' membership, as Barroso suggests, then it has to apply and if it applies and joins it must join the euro. There are no 'opt outs' for new members.

[gaelic cowboy]

In an interview with the BBC, Barroso said he would not discuss Scotland's future within the UK.

"I am not going to speculate now about possible secessions, it is not my job. But I can tell you that to join the European Union, yes, we have a procedure. It is a procedure of international law," he said.

"A state has to be a democracy first of all, and that state has to apply to become a member of the European Union and all the other member states have to give their consent. A new state, if it wants to join the European Union, has to apply to become a member like any state. In fact, I see no country leaving and I see many countries wanting to join."

The matter is by no means certain. IF Scotland does not 'inherit' membership, as Barroso suggests, then it has to apply and if it applies and joins it must join the euro. There are no 'opt outs' for new members.

Since there already subject to various directives it would merely be a rubber stamp.

[SoFarSoGood]

In theory though the remaining UK could block Scottish entry as our consent would be needed. Same with Spain if Catalonia left etc...

[Kralizec]

I vaguely recall that years ago I read the exact opposite - an EU commission member, or one of their monkeys, said that Scots already had the status of "EU citizens" and that it would not change if they left the UK.

It has never happened before, so we won't know for sure until Scotland/Catalonia/Venice/Whatever does break off and the question becomes immediately relevant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sure the simplest explanation is the most likely here - Barroso does not know the relevant EU law.

Something to think about.

[Fragony]

Kewl, pics of the Greek riots because that plumb eastblock workhorse Merkel visits them. Much to anyone's surprise a lot of Godwins http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/archives/foto-video/2012/10/fotoserie-rellen-in-griekenland (how much do these uniforms cost?)

Which is pretty hypocrite with a party like Golden Dawn being so popular, they are the real thing

edit: it has to be said though, Merkel really looks like Hitler.

[SoFarSoGood]

So Madrid have today banned any Catalonian vote on secession says Reuters but the Catalans asked the EU if it was legal in September. Divide and rule...

[Beskar]

So Madrid have today banned any Catalonian vote on secession says Reuters but the Catalans asked the EU if it was legal in September. Divide and rule...

But under one Europe, wouldn't everyone be together as one? Standing together against the threats of China, Russia and the US?

[SoFarSoGood]

So thought others that tried to impose their will on Europe so on one level; not if it's at the cost of freedom.

But to answer your more direct question I suppose that's an interesting debatable topic. If you consider the 'world empires' of say 500 years ago you would perhaps argue that the Moguls or Chinese looked dominant but the reverse was proved true; the fractious and competitative nations of Europe - because they competing with each other - proved dominant over the 'empires'. Well that's one view anyway. I mean the Chinese had gunpowder and the printing press before us so how do you explain why they didn't prove dominant? Independence and competition, it is argued, fosters innovation etc...

[InsaneApache]

But under one Europe, wouldn't everyone be together as one? Standing together against the threats of China, Russia and the US?

Replace Europe with Jugoslavia and that went well didn't it?

[Beskar]

Then there is the whole Airbus and BAE systems merger, which was based on the need of cooperation to compete against the likes of Boeing.

There were also the times where competition reaches such a level, everything underneath it collapses, as you said yourself "divide and rule". A Non-united Europe is easier to have dominance over than an United Europe. You have the Eastern Bloc countries in particular under the sway of Russia, then the more Western under the sway of America, where Britain is seen as America's lapdog.

I agree. A corrupt unaccountable European government is a disaster-waiting-to-happen though what is really ironic, most of the unaccountability of Europe is down to the euro-sceptics who refuse to allow the creation of a legitimate European government. Most of the bureaucracy is built around protecting individual interest opposed to collective interest. I said in the beginning of the Euro that this was the big draw back as there was no political enforcement as there was no political will, the political will in place ran along the lines of "have your cake and eat it".

[Beskar]

Replace Europe with Jugoslavia and that went well didn't it?

Apples and Oranges, I don't think ethic cleansing would occurring in the Europe Union, plus Yugoslavia collapsed after a very bad economic bankruptcy due to Western powers blocking Yugoslavian exports. In the beginning there were even many plans for further mergers and the creation of the Balkan Federation, but this was stopped by Stalin.

In return, I could reply with "United States of America", "Germany" and other such examples...

[SoFarSoGood]

Then there is the whole Airbus and BAE systems merger, which was based on the need of cooperation to compete against the likes of Boeing.

Merkel blocked it and it was BAE Systems and EADS which is Franco German.


A corrupt unaccountable European government is a disaster-waiting-to-happen though what is really ironic, most of the unaccountability of Europe is down to the euro-sceptics who refuse to allow the creation of a legitimate European government.

What? So it was those who argued that the euro was a bad idea and were not in Government who allowed the appointed Commission that alone can propose laws? How did they do that? Who was it that forced through the Lisbon Treaty? Those who voted against the Constitution? I am afraid you are mistaken.

[Papewaio]

Apples and Oranges, I don't think ethic cleansing would occurring in the Europe Union,

Why not? History says otherwise. If the EU collapses to be like Greece you will get Golden Dawns gaining strength everywhere. Both they, Germany's Brown Shirts and Italy's Black Shirts rose to power in collapsing economies. Spain's facists came to power slightly differently but again on the back of poverty.

It is not like Europeans have fundamentally changed it is their economies and being the potential nuclear battlefield between two superpowers that dampened warlike and racist tendancies.

How are Romas being treated in the EUs collapsing economies? Take a good look and you will see that old racial tension festering. Of course the cries will be they steal, abuse welfare, don't work, commit crimes. I'm sure the economic losses they cause will be paltry compared to the banks and speculators. But the Gypsyies are a much more accessible people to make an example of and as economies collapse populist leaders need to show their strength credentials.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apples and Oranges, I don't think ethic cleansing would occurring in the Europe Union, plus Yugoslavia collapsed after a very bad economic bankruptcy due to Western powers blocking Yugoslavian exports. In the beginning there were even many plans for further mergers and the creation of the Balkan Federation, but this was stopped by Stalin.

In return, I could reply with "United States of America", "Germany" and other such examples...

The US and Germany have shared narratives that bind them together and define a unified national character - the only unifying narrative across Europe is the fight to prevent the spread of Islam, otherwise European history is one of conflict and constantly shifting Alliances.

The Germans and the Brits and the Dutch beat Napoleon, The Brits the French and the Poles and Czechs beat Hitler...

There isn't a common narrative until you go back to Ancient Rome, and that doesn't include the Germans.

The current talk of "irreversible" Union is historically myopic because there will be another war in Europe, it is just a question of when.

The question of countering China is a valid one, and it is worth pointing out that European politics meant that the initial response to Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler was woefully inadequate, but it remains a fact that co-operation does not require Union and that enforced Union is not a good idea because a House Divided will fall. Better in that case for Europe to be many houses instead of one.

[Beskar]

The question of countering China is a valid one, and it is worth pointing out that European politics meant that the initial response to Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler was woefully inadequate, but it remains a fact that co-operation does not require Union and that enforced Union is not a good idea because a House Divided will fall. Better in that case for Europe to be many houses instead of one.

Admittedly, I am in the mind of a European Federation or a Strong Confederation. I would naturally prefer the first for ideological reasons, but I can accept the second for practical reasons. Either way, I don't believe in strong centralisation, I believe administration should be at the regional level. Only things that I believe should be nation/supernatural are matters such as defence.

Also believe in a "Constitution". For example, like America's, which ensures a rule of law which helps prevent abuse or "worst come" situations that people dread, and enshrine Human Rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

[SoFarSoGood]

The US Constitution is something like 2 pages... the EU one over 3000. The point 'basic principles' are fine but the EU wants to control everything. We also have shared defence organisation by the way... it's called NATO. Why then do we need a European Army at the beck and call of the unelected?

[Fragony]

Why not? History says otherwise. If the EU collapses to be like Greece you will get Golden Dawns gaining strength everywhere. Both they, Germany's Brown Shirts and Italy's Black Shirts rose to power in collapsing economies. Spain's facists came to power slightly differently but again on the back of poverty.

It is not like Europeans have fundamentally changed it is their economies and being the potential nuclear battlefield between two superpowers that dampened warlike and racist tendancies.

How are Romas being treated in the EUs collapsing economies? Take a good look and you will see that old racial tension festering. Of course the cries will be they steal, abuse welfare, don't work, commit crimes. I'm sure the economic losses they cause will be paltry compared to the banks and speculators. But the Gypsyies are a much more accessible people to make an example of and as economies collapse populist leaders need to show their strength credentials.

I don't see such a thing happening really but I won't say it's impossible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Admittedly, I am in the mind of a European Federation or a Strong Confederation. I would naturally prefer the first for ideological reasons, but I can accept the second for practical reasons. Either way, I don't believe in strong centralisation, I believe administration should be at the regional level. Only things that I believe should be nation/supernatural are matters such as defence.

Also believe in a "Constitution". For example, like America's, which ensures a rule of law which helps prevent abuse or "worst come" situations that people dread, and enshrine Human Rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I don't care - I want the next generation to be safe and happy, ideaology is for universities, not politics. Europe's leaders fail to understand this basic point, which is why I don't want Britain any closer to Europe than absolutely necessary.

The question you need to ask is "what makes good governance."

[rory_20_uk]

The US Constitution is something like 2 pages... the EU one over 3000. The point 'basic principles' are fine but the EU wants to control everything. We also have shared defence organisation by the way... it's called NATO. Why then do we need a European Army at the beck and call of the unelected?

To play Devil's Advocate, the brevity of some elements has led to misunderstandings.

In the USA a small group initially had a constitution and others could either join or not. The EU has a great number together and finally is trying to codify it - without the ability for those that don't like it to leave.

In the USA, the population was relatively homogenous, as a scorched earth policy was adopted to the natives and people had chosen to leave Europe because of all the baggage.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

I don't care - I want the next generation to be safe and happy, ideaology is for universities, not politics. Europe's leaders fail to understand this basic point, which is why I don't want Britain any closer to Europe than absolutely necessary.

The question you need to ask is "what makes good governance."

All politics is ideology at some level.

The UK conservative party claims to reject ideology, instead preferring pragmaticism and slow gradual changes (to what end, they don't know beforehand). Which doesn't mean that they don't have an actual ideology, just that's it's not coherent and that the positions they take are not necessarily predictable.

[rory_20_uk]

Their ideology is pragmatism.

Although Labour's position could be viewed as more coherant, that is because they have traditionally chosen a monolithic approach where internal dissent was effectively crushed. THe idiology there appears to be that failing of spending money only indicates that they didn't borrow enough to spend.

~:smoking:

[SoFarSoGood]

In the USA, the population was relatively homogenous

And in Europe?

[rory_20_uk]

And in Europe?

Clearly not. I can point you towards a decent textbook of European history for the last, oh 2,000 years if you want...

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

You anti-Europe types are not only racist and xenophobic, but against peace too.

[Beskar]

Europe has been rather homogeneous and getting more so. There is actually quite a strong European identity, especially with newer generations. I have travelled Europe and pretty much everyone then valued Europe and grumbled about nationalists trying to ruin a good thing.

I feel connected with Horetore, Husar, Louis, and a great many of the European posters on here.

[rory_20_uk]

You anti-Europe types are not only racist and xenophobic, but against peace too.

Such a stupid comment requires a response... Let me know if this is too complex... Nations is not the same as races. Clear? It is also possible not to want to be joined at the hip with something without having a phobia of it.


Europe has been rather homogeneous and getting more so. There is actually quite a strong European identity, especially with newer generations. I have travelled Europe and pretty much everyone then valued Europe and grumbled about nationalists trying to ruin a good thing.

I feel connected with Horetore, Husar, Louis, and a great many of the European posters on here.

Assuming you're already positive, what a shock that your selection bias tends to gravitate to those who share the same view!
Also the terms you use are so nebulous to be close to meaningless. Is the "good thing" a German Transfer Union? Probably it is in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. Is it a low currency peg to increase exports? It probably is in Germany.
I would agree that Europe is getting more homogenous, but oddly enough there are entire regions of Spain which want Independence (Xenophobes runining a good thing, clearly), some in North Italy, Scotland and possibly Wales before long.

I know, the people are wrong and they need to be led to the correct solution, which is deeper integration. Although there are some foolish people who are frankly either bigots (as referred to by dear Gordon Brown) or worse who can be safely ignored as the only views that count are the correct, enlightened ones...

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

Their ideology is pragmatism.

Although Labour's position could be viewed as more coherant, that is because they have traditionally chosen a monolithic approach where internal dissent was effectively crushed. THe idiology there appears to be that failing of spending money only indicates that they didn't borrow enough to spend.

~:smoking:

Politics doesn't stop with budgetary decisions.

Gay marriage is a good example. It came as something of a surprise that Cameron embraced the idea, given his own voting record. While I would support it, many voters probably were under the assumption that the Tories are against it and would remain so. "I support gay marriage because I'm a conservative" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard in politics.

Tories can be just as unforgiving to internal dissent as Labour. Not so with the gay marriage thing or Cameron's decision not to hold an EU referendum - neither are popular with his own base, and he's not a particulary strong leader to begin with. Or at least that's my impression.

[SoFarSoGood]

There is actually quite a strong European identity, especially with newer generations.

I am European - I admit it! I love Europe, Poland, Greece, England, France alot of lovely places and good people. Doesn't make me pro EU but in fact makes me want to save Europe from the EU all the more.

You are NOT a xenophobe because you reject undemocratic union.

[InsaneApache]

Not wanting to derail the thread.

Once and for all you can't 'marry' someone of the same gender. The definition of marriage is a state of matrimony between a man and a woman.

Call it what you want but it aint marriage. Unless you're Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice.


When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

[Beskar]

The EU was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19921072

[InsaneApache]

The EU was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19921072

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142636-As-if-it-couldn-t-get-any-more-rediculous

[Beskar]

You are NOT a xenophobe because you reject undemocratic union.

But you also reject a democratic union?

[Conradus]

Not wanting to derail the thread.

Once and for all you can't 'marry' someone of the same gender. The definition of marriage is a state of matrimony between a man and a woman.

Call it what you want but it aint marriage. Unless you're Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice.

That just depends on where you are. In Dutch 'huwelijk' is the legal relationship between two people. The translation for the word is marriage. That most countries only allow marriages between men/women doesn't change the fact that you can still call same-sex marriages a marriage if these are allowed under your own law.

(Besides even Oxford online gives me the result of "(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex."

[Vladimir]

Such a stupid comment requires a response... Let me know if this is too complex... Nations is not the same as races. Clear? It is also possible not to want to be joined at the hip with something without having a phobia of it.

Stoopid people react stoopidly to stoopid comments.

You're British, I expect better. :shame:

[drone]

The EU was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19921072
Extrapolating from some recent winners, I guess continental war is about 10 years away then.

[Kralizec]

I'm pretty sure that when the Dutch were about to introduce gay marriage people used the same argument as IA. It's a circular argument though - marriage (right now) is an instutition between a man and a woman, so we can't go to a situation where it also applies to man/man or woman/woman couples.

As IA said it's off topic though. The reason I brought it up was because Cameron wants to introduce it and in doing so probably dissapointed some Tory voters, which is what you get from a party that doesn't want to pin itself on an ideological framework. Incidentally that was off topic, too.

[Fragony]

I completely changed my opinion on it, I used to see it as hostile activism, now that it's here I am kinda proud of it. Things change and so do I.

[SoFarSoGood]

But you also reject a democratic union?

I do not think a democratic union is in the interests of Europe. You are either deluding yourself about the causes of war or thinking that 'bigger is better'. The EU has not stopped war in Europe; NATO has. Neither is bigger always better.

The fact is though that the current scheme is flawed and corrupt from bottom up (well top down in this case). You have to be 'democratic' to join... but the system you join is anti - demoacratic, where a few flawed 'idealists' are determined to get their way no matter how much it costs in financial or democratic terms. They promised prosperity with the euro, others warned them it was flawed but they were discounted as 'mad' and 'xenophobes'... "reactionaries" to use the real term; they went ahead nevertheless knowing, I am quite convinced, that it would produce a "crisis" in which extra undemocratic measures to push their 'project' forward could be justified: The appointment of troikas etc and Prime Ministers in 2 countries...

Are you sure this is a safe way forward? To me it seems insane and only laying the ground for another war or civil wars. Let me ask; what happens if the next lot of bail out isn't given to Greece? They have to leave the euro in November... then what? Why isn't the ECB buying Greek bonds?

Let me give you a hint: "In recent weeks, senior military figures and veteran right-wing politicians have warned that the army might step in after Catalonia threatened to declare independence", regarding Spain. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9603745/EU-awarded-Nobel-Peace-Prize.html

[Sarmatian]

I do not think a democratic union is in the interests of Europe. You are either deluding yourself about the causes of war or thinking that 'bigger is better'. The EU has not stopped war in Europe; NATO has. Neither is bigger always better.


One could argue that USSR/Russia stopped the war in Europe as Europe for the first time had an enemy that could take all of it on and quite possibly win, and NATO was merely a reflection of that.

Then again, USSR/Russia is also in Europe so it becomes a moot point...

Generally though, it is bad idea to think of European fragmentation as a "good thing" etc etc... In the entire history of the world we were ahead of China GDP-wise for what... about 150-175 years. We'll be ahead for another 30 maybe, 50 at most. So, in the last few thousand years, we managed to be ahead for less than two centuries. Not exactly a great record, I'd say.

Anyway, most pro-Europe position doesn't exactly want a dictatorship based in Brussels, but a framework where we could deal with issues that are bigger than national governments, like climate changes, long term sustainable food production, protection of the natural environment, some military issues like common defence and, where needed, economic policies. Most other stuff, the practical stuff, would be decentralized and would be dealt on local/regional level, bypassing nation states for the most part.

[gaelic cowboy]

Europe has been rather homogeneous and getting more so. There is actually quite a strong European identity, especially with newer generations. I have travelled Europe and pretty much everyone then valued Europe and grumbled about nationalists trying to ruin a good thing.

I feel connected with Horetore, Husar, Louis, and a great many of the European posters on here.


:laugh4: til they ended up on the hook for bad investments then suddenly it's all national interest again.

[SoFarSoGood]

One could argue that USSR/Russia stopped the war in Europe as Europe for the first time had an enemy that could take all of it on and quite possibly win, and NATO was merely a reflection of that.

Then again, USSR/Russia is also in Europe so it becomes a moot point...

Generally though, it is bad idea to think of European fragmentation as a "good thing" etc etc... In the entire history of the world we were ahead of China GDP-wise for what... about 150-175 years. We'll be ahead for another 30 maybe, 50 at most. So, in the last few thousand years, we managed to be ahead for less than two centuries. Not exactly a great record, I'd say.

Anyway, most pro-Europe position doesn't exactly want a dictatorship based in Brussels, but a framework where we could deal with issues that are bigger than national governments, like climate changes, long term sustainable food production, protection of the natural environment, some military issues like common defence and, where needed, economic policies. Most other stuff, the practical stuff, would be decentralized and would be dealt on local/regional level, bypassing nation states for the most part.

All sound and sensible ideas and I'd vote for that, sadly it is not what is happening. See the Nazi salutes at Mrs Merkel? Perhaps the Greeks are just being obtuse but when you were promised democracy and prosperity and get the opposite you have a right to feel robbed.

[rory_20_uk]

All sound and sensible ideas and I'd vote for that, sadly it is not what is happening. See the Nazi salutes at Mrs Merkel? Perhaps the Greeks are just being obtuse but when you were promised democracy and prosperity and get the opposite you have a right to feel robbed.

It was the Greek government that lied to them and fixed the books. The EU didn't exactly ask too many questions. Unless the average Greek is childish enough to imagine others will write them blank cheques for years to come they have only themselves to blame.

~:smoking:

[SoFarSoGood]

It was the Greek government that lied to them and fixed the books. The EU didn't exactly ask too many questions. Unless the average Greek is childish enough to imagine others will write them blank cheques for years to come they have only themselves to blame.

You are partly correct; yes the Greeks and Goldman Sachs were 'cooking the books'; or commiting fraud to call it by it's true name. The EU was party to the fraud. But then Germany had a bit of a dip economicaly so the ECB re-inflated the system (or "added liquidity" lol) with cheap loans, which of course all the southern bloc lapped up. Germany got out of it's mini - dip and payed for eastern Germany cheap - and then retrenched. The others however were off on cheap credit and all looking totaly as promised land-ish. Then credit dried up due to the US 'sub- prime' market (which again basicly means selling money fraudulently) and suddenly it all caved in... no more cheap cash.

If you think this a coincidence though you are mistaken. ALL the private institutions/banks were fooled. There was to be NO bail outs in both Maastrict and Lisbon this possibility is ruled out; never going to happen... except it has and we are waiting for the 'troika' to take over Spain when they have to ask for a bail out. But the answer is more of the same...?

[SoFarSoGood]

"State of Emergency for Business" says the Mouvement des Entreprises de France over Article 6 of the new tax code. Article 6 raises the top rate of capital gains tax from 34.5% to 62.2%. Which is pretty stupid as in Germany it's 26.4% and in the UK 28%.

Presumably this is to allow M. Hollande to hire his 60,000 new teachers as he promised. Only trouble is becuase less private business's will be around to pay his new ectortion he won't get the tax returns to hire the teachers. I wasn't aware that France needed 60k new teachers anyway but it must be so.

[Kralizec]

You are partly correct; yes the Greeks and Goldman Sachs were 'cooking the books'; or commiting fraud to call it by it's true name. The EU was party to the fraud. But then Germany had a bit of a dip economicaly so the ECB re-inflated the system (or "added liquidity" lol) with cheap loans, which of course all the southern bloc lapped up. Germany got out of it's mini - dip and payed for eastern Germany cheap - and then retrenched. The others however were off on cheap credit and all looking totaly as promised land-ish. Then credit dried up due to the US 'sub- prime' market (which again basicly means selling money fraudulently) and suddenly it all caved in... no more cheap cash.

If you think this a coincidence though you are mistaken. ALL the private institutions/banks were fooled. There was to be NO bail outs in both Maastrict and Lisbon this possibility is ruled out; never going to happen... except it has and we are waiting for the 'troika' to take over Spain when they have to ask for a bail out. But the answer is more of the same...?

Greece was let in because of the precedent of Italy. Italy managed to briefly satisfy the budget criteria, on paper at least, when the decision was to be made wether Italy would become part of the eurozone as soon as 1999. This was realized by some opportunist bookkeeping and introducing reform measures that would be repealed after several months due to political instability. It was known that Greece was much the same, but as said, they were let in because their case was seen as being similar to Italy.

The reality was that Greece was far worse. What Italy did at a decisive point of time, Greece did to a far greater extent for over a decade. Even the Greek government didn't know in 2009 just exactly how bad their situation was, because all the official statistics were bunk. Germany and others can be blamed for letting in Italy in so easily; but Greece was let in under the assumption that their books weren't worse than Italy.

[Fragony]

Greece was let in because of the precedent of Italy. Italy managed to briefly satisfy the budget criteria, on paper at least, when the decision was to be made wether Italy would become part of the eurozone as soon as 1999. This was realized by some opportunist bookkeeping and introducing reform measures that would be repealed after several months due to political instability. It was known that Greece was much the same, but as said, they were let in because their case was seen as being similar to Italy.

The reality was that Greece was far worse. What Italy did at a decisive point of time, Greece did to a far greater extent for over a decade. Even the Greek government didn't know in 2009 just exactly how bad their situation was, because all the official statistics were bunk. Germany and others can be blamed for letting in Italy in so easily; but Greece was let in under the assumption that their books weren't worse than Italy.

And who is to blame for that then the international-socialism already knew that their books were way off.

[SoFarSoGood]

The reality was that Greece was far worse. What Italy did at a decisive point of time, Greece did to a far greater extent for over a decade. Even the Greek government didn't know in 2009 just exactly how bad their situation was, because all the official statistics were bunk. Germany and others can be blamed for letting in Italy in so easily; but Greece was let in under the assumption that their books weren't worse than Italy.

And nobody in the EU noticed or said a word? If they didn't notice then they are guilty of deriliction of their duty. If they did know and didn't say anything then they accomplices to the fraud. Don't forget real people lost money over this when private investerors had to take a 75% 'haircut'. No wonder they have to be legaly exempt because otherwise they would be in prison.

[Fragony]

And nobody in the EU noticed or said a word? If they didn't notice then they are guilty of deriliction of their duty. If they did know and didn't say anything then they accomplices to the fraud. Don't forget real people lost money over this when private investerors had to take a 75% 'haircut'. No wonder they have to be legaly exempt because otherwise they would be in prison.

They knew. An international-socialist superstate is just more important for europhiles. When Greece was hauled in the international-socialism already knew

[Kralizec]

And nobody in the EU noticed or said a word? If they didn't notice then they are guilty of deriliction of their duty. If they did know and didn't say anything then they accomplices to the fraud. Don't forget real people lost money over this when private investerors had to take a 75% 'haircut'. No wonder they have to be legaly exempt because otherwise they would be in prison.

Private investors fell for it as well. Regardless, I agree it's inexcusable. And it's a good reason for Germans to be angry at the German government, Dutch for being angry at the Dutch government, and so on.

However the argument is sometimes extended to absolve Greece of its own responsibility, while a massively greater part of the blame falls on the Greek government. A lot of bleeding hards in and outside of Greece have argued that Greece was "forced" into the Euro, which is a blatant lie. More down to earth people have argued that if Greece wasn't an eurozone member it wouldn't have borrowed so much. I find that argument questionable because there's no reason to assume that Greece under the drachme wouldn't have lied to hide the extent of their deficit and debt, like they did in real history.

I wouldn't assume that Greece under the drachme would have been necessarily better off. If we look at Hungary, which greatly devalued its currency after the crisis, a lot of people are saddled with unpayable mortgages because their contracts are denominated in foreign currencies precisely because it was foreseen that their currency might at some point be devalued. I think it's perfectly safe to assume that Greece would have been in serious s*** at this point one way or the other - to what extent the euro added to these problems is debatable, but even so it's not something for a Greek to point blame at Germans or Finns.

[Fragony]

Private investors fell for it as well. Regardless, I agree it's inexcusable. And it's a good reason for Germans to be angry at the German government, Dutch for being angry at the Dutch government, and so on.

However the argument is sometimes extended to absolve Greece of its own responsibility, while a massively greater part of the blame falls on the Greek government. A lot of bleeding hards in and outside of Greece have argued that Greece was "forced" into the Euro, which is a blatant lie. More down to earth people have argued that if Greece wasn't an eurozone member it wouldn't have borrowed so much. I find that argument questionable because there's no reason to assume that Greece under the drachme wouldn't have lied to hide the extent of their deficit and debt, like they did in real history.

I wouldn't assume that Greece under the drachme would have been necessarily better off. If we look at Hungary, which greatly devalued its currency after the crisis, a lot of people are saddled with unpayable mortgages because their contracts are denominated in foreign currencies precisely because it was foreseen that their currency might at some point be devalued. I think it's perfectly safe to assume that Greece would have been in serious s*** at this point one way or the other - to what extent the euro added to these problems is debatable, but even so it's not something for a Greek to point blame at Germans or Finns.

That is a blatant lie may I remind you of the horrible state the ordinary Greek is right now. The international-socialism wanted, needed, them in, not because of any worth but because of their idealism, It was not a very good idea to do so. The international-socialism payed good money to alter the books, and now we all get to pay. Southern-europe is on the brink of civil war you can't know that because you read quality media, but tens of thousands of people are protesting daily. It is getting out of hand.

[SoFarSoGood]

Private investors fell for it as well. Regardless, I agree it's inexcusable. And it's a good reason for Germans to be angry at the German government, Dutch for being angry at the Dutch government, and so on.

However the argument is sometimes extended to absolve Greece of its own responsibility, while a massively greater part of the blame falls on the Greek government. A lot of bleeding hards in and outside of Greece have argued that Greece was "forced" into the Euro, which is a blatant lie. More down to earth people have argued that if Greece wasn't an eurozone member it wouldn't have borrowed so much. I find that argument questionable because there's no reason to assume that Greece under the drachme wouldn't have lied to hide the extent of their deficit and debt, like they did in real history.

I wouldn't assume that Greece under the drachme would have been necessarily better off. If we look at Hungary, which greatly devalued its currency after the crisis, a lot of people are saddled with unpayable mortgages because their contracts are denominated in foreign currencies precisely because it was foreseen that their currency might at some point be devalued. I think it's perfectly safe to assume that Greece would have been in serious s*** at this point one way or the other - to what extent the euro added to these problems is debatable, but even so it's not something for a Greek to point blame at Germans or Finns.

So the EU carries no blame whatsoever? Of course Greece may well be in a mess right now even without the euro; the US and UK are hardly flourishing but at least the solution would lie in the hands of the elected Greek Government and NOT some unelected 'troika' that has it backed up against the euro wall so it can bleed it dry.

[Kralizec]

I'm aware of the protests. Don't think that I'm ignorant of the situation, or accuse me of being a liar, just because I don't agree with your BS opinions.

The EU treaty includes a clause that states have to join the euro at some point, but it's a meaningless article. Denmark, Sweden and the UK have opt-outs for the euro. The Czech republic does not technically have an opt-out and has already qualified for entry for some years. but has postponed it for a while now and some doubt if it ever will join. If the Greek government didn't want the Euro, it would not have been in the eurozone.

[SoFarSoGood]

We are living an Orwellian dream... The EU spread 'democracy' by ignoring referenda in Holland, France and Ireland. Not content with this democratic outcomes of this piece of 'slight of hand' that resulted in the Lisbon Treaty they went further and imposed new unelected Prime Ministers in Italy and Greece. They are of course so well meaning and wise they felt compelled to spread 'prosperity', ignoring and insulting anyone that warned that the system as proposed was flawed. We can see the wonderful prosperity now. Now they are spreading 'peace' with baton sticks and tear gas. Of course if one obects to this rule by the unelected you are a 'reactionary' or a 'warmonger'... "Truespeak" has arrived.

[Fragony]

I'm aware of the protests. Don't think that I'm ignorant of the situation, or accuse me of being a liar, just because I don't agree with your BS opinions.

The EU treaty includes a clause that states have to join the euro at some point, but it's a meaningless article. Denmark, Sweden and the UK have opt-outs for the euro. The Czech republic does not technically have an opt-out and has already qualified for entry for some years. but has postponed it for a while now and some doubt if it ever will join. If the Greek
government didn't want the Euro, it would not have been in the eurozone.

And if our government listened to us neither would we be in it

[SoFarSoGood]

"The Swiss army is preparing for possible internal civil unrest as well as waves of refugees from euro-countries as the economic crisis drags on."

http://euobserver.com/economic/117873

[Kralizec]

So the EU carries no blame whatsoever? Of course Greece may well be in a mess right now even without the euro; the US and UK are hardly flourishing but at least the solution would lie in the hands of the elected Greek Government and NOT some unelected 'troika' that has it backed up against the euro wall so it can bleed it dry.

Letting Greece in was a mistake, the countries who agreed with this shot themselves in the foot. Entering the Eurozone was a mistake of the Greek government. The only way you could construe the EU as having blame in respect to what the Greeks are going through is if you argue that the EU should have protected the Greeks against the incompetence and insincerity of their own government. Not an entirely invalid line of reasoning, but in any case the EU is paying for their mistakes by helping Greece with financial help (and if you lend out money under conditions you're apparently a nazi, seeing as how the Greeks view Merkel)


We are living an Orwellian dream... The EU spread 'democracy' by ignoring referenda in Holland, France and Ireland. Not content with this democratic outcomes of this piece of 'slight of hand' that resulted in the Lisbon Treaty they went further and imposed new unelected Prime Ministers in Italy and Greece. They are of course so well meaning and wise they felt compelled to spread 'prosperity', ignoring and insulting anyone that warned that the system as proposed was flawed. We can see the wonderful prosperity now. Now they are spreading 'peace' with baton sticks and tear gas. Of course if one obects to this rule by the unelected you are a 'reactionary' or a 'warmonger'... "Truespeak" has arrived.

Most of your post has either been dealt with before in this thread or is just hyperbole or plain ol' nonsense. I'll just point out that by far most of the namecalling in the discussions around the EU comes from eurosceptics.

[Fragony]

There has never been a mistake the international-socialism knew, while the monatery union is build the political union sneaks in, the means is not being able to get back. We are digging our own graves supporting the international socialism, we are of no concern. It will feed, nothing else will ever come from it.

[SoFarSoGood]

Letting Greece in was a mistake, the countries who agreed with this shot themselves in the foot. Entering the Eurozone was a mistake of the Greek government. The only way you could construe the EU as having blame in respect to what the Greeks are going through is if you argue that the EU should have protected the Greeks against the incompetence and insincerity of their own government. Not an entirely invalid line of reasoning, but in any case the EU is paying for their mistakes by helping Greece with financial help (and if you lend out money under conditions you're apparently a nazi, seeing as how the Greeks view Merkel)



Most of your post has either been dealt with before in this thread or is just hyperbole or plain ol' nonsense. I'll just point out that by far most of the namecalling in the discussions around the EU comes from eurosceptics.

Ok on the first part, re Greek entry into the euro: Did the EU know or not? Should Spain have been allowed to join? Ireland? Portugal? France?

On the second part: You appear to wish to deprive me, and all of Europe, of the democratic rights which my forefathers died defending. You seem happy to do this at expense of millions of unemployed Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians. Can you justify what gives anyone the right to do this?

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt00rVUj_J4&feature=player_embedded

[Kralizec]

Ok on the first part, re Greek entry into the euro: Did the EU know or not? Should Spain have been allowed to join? Ireland? Portugal? France?

Spain and Ireland: I don't know the decisions and the arguments in detail, but I guess probably so. Spain and Ireland were not highly indebted before the financial crisis. France is doing well enough so far despite that they were often in violation of the Stability criteria from the beginning - I disagree with many of Hollande's ideas but we'll just have to wait and see how that plays out in an objective sense


On the second part: You appear to wish to deprive me, and all of Europe, of the democratic rights which my forefathers died defending. You seem happy to do this at expense of millions of unemployed Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians. Can you justify what gives anyone the right to do this?

No I'm not. You're deliberately misrepresenting my opinions in order to take down strawmen.

The current Italian and Greek governments are legitimate, I've explained this several times before and I'm not going to reiterate the reasons why just because you have a chronic inability to see beyond your pre-conceived notions.

"Your democratic rights" are the last ones which we could call under attack. If your government lacks a mandate from the people to keep the country involved in the EU then you need to sort that out yourself, don't expect Brussels to do that for you.

I do not necessarily agree with the EU policy, in general or in the case of this crisis. An EMU exit might prove inevitable for one or two members but I resist the suggestion that the Euro is solely responsible for each and every problem these countries face and that jumping ship is an easy, painless way out.

[Conradus]

And if our government listened to us neither would we be in it

Us being, just you Fragony, or us being the majority of the Dutch inhabitants?

[gaelic cowboy]

Ok on the first part, re Greek entry into the euro: Did the EU know or not? Should Spain have been allowed to join? Ireland? Portugal? France?

On the second part: You appear to wish to deprive me, and all of Europe, of the democratic rights which my forefathers died defending. You seem happy to do this at expense of millions of unemployed Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians. Can you justify what gives anyone the right to do this?


Ireland sailed and past the requirements for entry as they were during the time of initial industrial growth in the 90s.

It was Italy and Greece that people closed there eyes too joining, Portugal would have to be let join as it is economically integrated into Spain. which means even though Ireland was able to join it should have refused as long as UK did not join.

But at the time EUcrats made veiled threats about making people pay a high price for joining later, our government had to way up the pro's and cons and made the wrong choice as they feared the Euro might be a success. Initially this seemed to be true but we know now it was nott as Germany merely exported it's capital to keep it's costs to boost exports.

[SoFarSoGood]

Spain and Ireland: I don't know the decisions and the arguments in detail, but I guess probably so. Spain and Ireland were not highly indebted before the financial crisis. France is doing well enough so far despite that they were often in violation of the Stability criteria from the beginning - I disagree with many of Hollande's ideas but we'll just have to wait and see how that plays out in an objective sense

Ok... with you until
but I resist the suggestion that the Euro is solely responsible for each and every problem these countries face and that jumping ship is an easy, painless way out. Because if Spain and Ireland were 'good to join' how then do you account for the Irish and Spanish problems if it nothing to do with the euro? They should be living it up lending money to stupid broke UK who never joined the euro.


No I'm not. You're deliberately misrepresenting my opinions in order to take down strawmen.

Ok, I presume that you deny that Lisbon has anything whatsoever to do with the 'Constitution' so let me ask one simple question: Why did Ireland have to vote twice on Lisbon? Were they all drunk or was some voting irregularity the first time?


The current Italian and Greek governments are legitimate, I've explained this several times before and I'm not going to reiterate the reasons why just because you have a chronic inability to see beyond your pre-conceived notions.

The current Greek Government is legitimate I agree but who in the Italian Cabinet was elected by the people? Ohhh you mean 'Super' Mario was elected by MPs... with a veiled threat of rule by troika behind it. I have heard of this type of 'democracy' but thought it was practised in the Soviet Bloc.

You are defending and apologising for the enslavement of Europe with quasi redefinitions of democracy and such like; "Lisbon isn't the Constitution...we changed bits and the name". Well I'm sorry to offend your sense of definition but it didn't feel like that to those that voted - nor the millions of others who are constantly denied a vote. The times are changing though and the UK will have a vote within the 5/6 years.

Let me give you some news: It will FAIL. If Greece hadn't sacked 1/4 of their senior Military Officers last year there'd already have been a Coup there. There are two ways it can end: Badly and Very Badly. If they allow Greece, Portugal and Spain to leave you get the first option. If they don't you want to hide your EU flag when they come for you.

And that joke that the RT woman uses has been around for years.

[gaelic cowboy]

Ok, I presume that you deny that Lisbon has anything whatsoever to do with the 'Constitution' so let me ask one simple question: Why did Ireland have to vite twice on Lisbon? Were they all drunk or was some voting irregularity the first time?

For the first time ever a pro-business, pro-atlantist, eurosceptic centre right politician told people the truth about the EU and the Lisbon Treaty an his name was Declan Ganley.

The shrieks from the establishment and Brussels were a joy to watch especially when they laughably started talking about CIA plants and loads of :daisy: like that.

[SoFarSoGood]

Of course... it's all an 'Anglo Saxon plot' didn't you know? Those horrid English and their American cousins who fought the last attempt to install a dictatorship on the Continent and are intent on ruining 'everything'. This is why the London Stock Exchange must be 'brought to heel' with a Tobin tax...

Oh let me tell you about this proposed tax: The 'Tobin tax' (the current unelected Prime Minister of Italy was an economics student of Tobins) is a proposed tax on all share deals. It's suggested that the value of the trade be taxed at around 0.1% and the money goes either to the EU or the national Government (they offered this option to the UK only for some reason). Well by volume of trade London is by far the largest market in Europe so naturaly London will raise more tax, thus the proposed bribe to the British Government; "you can keep your slice". What it will really mean is that less Europeans will be able to trade or invest in Europe: The companies will simply pass the charge on to the customers. On tope of this less people from outside Europe will chose to invest less here. So the next time the accounts are falsified (as Kralizec assures us) the bond rate will not reflect it and we can all continue to live in Eutopia denying the truth until the sky falls on our heads.

[gaelic cowboy]

Plus by bringing in this tax they can bash bankers which is popular and avoid the real cause of the eurogeddon.

[SoFarSoGood]

Indeed... it will be seen as a 'tax on the rich' but I am not 'rich' by any means and I trade on the markets. Granted I'm a bit richer now after poor US and Russian harvests but so what? Is it wrong to trade?

[gaelic cowboy]

Indeed... it will be seen as a 'tax on the rich' but I am not 'rich' by any means and I trade on the markets. Granted I'm a bit richer now after poor US and Russian harvests but so what? Is it wrong to trade?

Actually the people worst hit will be an ordinary joe bloggs if he has a pension or something like that, the rich can afford or even figure out how to avoid this tax but the ordinary 5/8 investing in the markets for his retirement gets penalised.

There obsessed with transaction taxes for some reason and no one has clearly pointed out a reason why this actually makes sense.
If ye ask me there mad to blame hedgefunds for the eurogeddon an this tax is really just a way to say "hey look we fixed it"

plus capital gains is enough to be paying anyway there is no need for another bloody tax on shares.

[Beskar]

There obsessed with transaction taxes for some reason and no one has clearly pointed out a reason why this actually makes sense.

It is to penalise the short-term transactions which is effectively money laundering by the super-rich and large corporations. The effect it has on Joe Bloggs is so minimal that you won't even notice it. If I remember the figures, the currency and share trading market is 7 times higher than Global GDP and it goes untaxed. It is a big ol' gravy train which the super-rich and large corporations enjoy.

0.1% tax on that is "nothing", it is only 0.1%. To put it bluntly.

Me and you have our £10 notes, 1p is taxed. We wouldn't even blink at it, probably think it fell down the sofa. Or even far more likely, we don't even touch this share market and won't even lose it.

[gaelic cowboy]

It is to penalise the short-term transactions which is effectively money laundering by the super-rich and large corporations. The effect it has on Joe Bloggs is so minimal that you won't even notice it. If I remember the figures, the currency and share trading market is 7 times higher than Global GDP and it goes untaxed. It is a big ol' gravy train which the super-rich and large corporations enjoy.

0.1% tax on that is "nothing", it is only 0.1%. To put it bluntly.

Me and you have our £10 notes, 1p is taxed. We wouldn't even blink at it, probably think it fell down the sofa. Or even far more likely, we don't even touch this share market and won't even lose it.

And yet it will be pension funds that suffer the most.

[Conradus]

The current Greek Government is legitimate I agree but who in the Italian Cabinet was elected by the people? Ohhh you mean 'Super' Mario was elected by MPs... with a veiled threat of rule by troika behind it. I have heard of this type of 'democracy' but thought it was practised in the Soviet Bloc.


Cabinets are never elected by the people here. People elect parliament who in turn support a cabinet which may or may not contain members from that parliament. It allows for more democratic control because you're not bound to a partyline and partyministers.

[Kralizec]

The shrieks from the establishment and Brussels were a joy to watch especially when they laughably started talking about CIA plants and loads of :daisy: like that.

Hysteric fits and paranoia, much like the Eurabia theory or "international socialism" in reverse. Won't defend any of it, of course.


Ok... with you until Because if Spain and Ireland were 'good to join' how then do you account for the Irish and Spanish problems if it nothing to do with the euro? They should be living it up lending money to stupid broke UK who never joined the euro.

Property bubbles. Granted, the euro was responsible for a large money supply and undoubtedly contributed to it, but I hardly believe that's the only reason. In the Neth's we have greatly inflated housing prices as well due to taxation policies.


Ok, I presume that you deny that Lisbon has anything whatsoever to do with the 'Constitution' so let me ask one simple question: Why did Ireland have to vote twice on Lisbon? Were they all drunk or was some voting irregularity the first time?

You presume wrong.

Drunk: probably, both times. It's how they roll.

The Irish had to vote twice because it's not practical or reasonable to start from scratch because the ratification fails in a single member state, a small one at that. And they did get a far better deal the second time, better than most countries did, more exemptions etc.


The current Greek Government is legitimate I agree but who in the Italian Cabinet was elected by the people? Ohhh you mean 'Super' Mario was elected by MPs... with a veiled threat of rule by troika behind it. I have heard of this type of 'democracy' but thought it was practised in the Soviet Bloc.

The Greek government is legitimate, now? That's not what you said earlier. Then again maybe consistency is too much to ask.

As for Italy, it's fairly simple. Italy needed to get his act together, the vast majority of policiticians realised this. Berlusconi realized this too, but he could not do this with his coalition. The Lega Nord was one of the few Italian parties who catagorically refused austerity measures and they were part of Berlusconi's thin majority. Most of the opposition parties agreed the measures were necessary and even propped up Berlusconi for a while to prevent a government crises. Everybody knew that this was only a stop gap solution and that Italy needed a cabinet to deliver economic reform; having interim elections would cause months of delay at a time when decisive action was urgently needed. So the vast majority of parties, left and right and including Berlusconi himself, agreed to back a technocratic cabinet under Monti's leadership to sit out the period in Berlusconi's place. It's unusual, but not unprecedented and certainly not illegal.


The times are changing though and the UK will have a vote within the 5/6 years.

Good for you. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Fragony]

Just to make it clear, calling the EU the international socialism is a great way to troll europhiles. That is fun because it almost always works Godwin-technically.

[Tellos Athenaios]

it almost always works Godwin-technically.

That would explain a lot.

[Fragony]

That would explain a lot.

That it works on people who get all Bambi-eyed when they see an EU-flag explains a lot mia muca

Observe, an europhile http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=pechtold&oq=pechtold&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2501.5931.0.6913.8.5.0.3.3.0.438.823.1j3j4-1.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.q6gR2lzsoYY&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=AXV-UKyPFpS00QXpyoGwBg#biv=i|31;d|jc4Ou4ZxBSIBJM:

What makes it so hilarious is that D 'direct democracy' 66 voters are mostly opposed to any referendum on the EU

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is to penalise the short-term transactions which is effectively money laundering by the super-rich and large corporations. The effect it has on Joe Bloggs is so minimal that you won't even notice it. If I remember the figures, the currency and share trading market is 7 times higher than Global GDP and it goes untaxed. It is a big ol' gravy train which the super-rich and large corporations enjoy.

0.1% tax on that is "nothing", it is only 0.1%. To put it bluntly.

Me and you have our £10 notes, 1p is taxed. We wouldn't even blink at it, probably think it fell down the sofa. Or even far more likely, we don't even touch this share market and won't even lose it.

Taxation is like trying to pluck a live goose you have to be sneaky or the goose catches on.

If Britain taxes trading the traders simply move to America - not only do we not get their trading taxes, we don't get their corporate or income taxes either. Look at what's happening in France.

Business is global - the trick is to offer competitive taxes, or competitive environments, so as to attract (or if you prefer dupe) businesses into setting up in your country and not elsewhere.

[Beskar]

And yet it will be pension funds that suffer the most.

Bovine.

Also a correction, it is 0.05%, it doesn't affect members of the public (SoFarSoGood, your stocks are aokay!) and this is including the vast majority of pension funds. If you heard otherwise, they are trying to shaft you.


Taxation is like trying to pluck a live goose you have to be sneaky or the goose catches on.

If Britain taxes trading the traders simply move to America - not only do we not get their trading taxes, we don't get their corporate or income taxes either. Look at what's happening in France.

Business is global - the trick is to offer competitive taxes, or competitive environments, so as to attract (or if you prefer dupe) businesses into setting up in your country and not elsewhere.

That was the whole thing about it, they were trying to encourage the tax globally. It was originally called the robinhood tax (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/) and the tobin tax came later on from the EU.

Here is a small clip from their website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qYtNwmXKIvM

Here is another article on it, it is even supported by many rich people, including the likes of Bill Gates:
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15555812)

To quote from there:

Oxfam reckons a tax of 0.05% could raise up to $400bn (£300bn). That is almost ten times the group's figure for the cost of meeting the Millennium Development Goals,

[Furunculus]

Quote Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy View Post - "And yet it will be pension funds that suffer the most."


Bovine.

would you care to refute that more thoroughly, please? :)

[Fragony]

Oh, we Dutch are narrominded according to the socialist 'good after the war' Schulz because we aren't 100% sure we need more Brussel.

creep

[SoFarSoGood]

Property bubbles. Granted, the euro was responsible for a large money supply and undoubtedly contributed to it, but I hardly believe that's the only reason. In the Neth's we have greatly inflated housing prices as well due to taxation policies.

Property bubbles do not account for why unit production costs between Germany and France vary some 20%, between Germany and Greece more. In short 'property bubbles' are a symptom and not the cause.


Drunk: probably, both times. It's how they roll...Then again maybe consistency is too much to ask....Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And there you were accusing us of being impolite. You're allowed to call us Nazis, mad, etc etc even in the European Parliament when our only 'crime' is to disagree. However the howls of self rightous indignation when you are insulted...


You presume wrong.... The Irish had to vote twice because it's not practical or reasonable to start from scratch because the ratification fails in a single member state, a small one at that.

Ok so Lisbon was Constitution 2? Firstly: If so the Irish vote on Lisbon merely supported the French and Dutch votes. Secondly: Since it is "not practical or reasonable to start from scratch because the ratification fails in a single member state" why not ban such votes and even General Elections that produce results that may hinder 'progress'? The true apologists for dictatorship would have a field day but the essence of your arguement is that the 'project' is too important for mere people to be allowed to decide. How though can you claim that it is done with the consent of the people?


It's unusual, but not unprecedented and certainly not illegal.

I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was undemocratic.


Cabinets are never elected by the people here. People elect parliament who in turn support a cabinet which may or may not contain members from that parliament. It allows for more democratic control because you're not bound to a partyline and partyministers.

How about your Prime Minister? Monti has not been elected by any of the public... He was made a member of the Italian equivalent of the House of Lords the day before the MPs 'elected' him Prime Minister. Now I have problems with one Cabinet Minister taking over as PM from another (Brown after Blair etc) as Brown himself was not leader when they came to Government. Brown was however elected in his constituency... Monti nothing.

[gaelic cowboy]

Bovine.


Also a correction, it is 0.05%, it doesn't affect members of the public (SoFarSoGood, your stocks are aokay!) and this is including the vast majority of pension funds. If you heard otherwise, they are trying to shaft you.

Pension funds and mutual funds trade all sorts of things I doubt either of them ignores the derivatives market.




That was the whole thing about it, they were trying to encourage the tax globally. It was originally called the robinhood tax (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/) and the tobin tax came later on from the EU.

They cant run a euro currency yet they were gonna try to run with a global tax such a laugh.

European_Union financial transaction tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_financial_transaction_tax)

from there own mouths it will reduce the derivatives market by 90%

[Beskar]

would you care to refute that more thoroughly, please? :)

Because it is aimed at currency speculation and trading markets and it is indeed these markets which will be taxed. Pensions usually invest into shares and bonds for growth, the tax effectively doesn't affect these at all.

However, what I have read is that companies are pushing the costs of the tax onto other people, to make them pay for the increase. This isn't actually what the tax does, it is companies being ruthless and total **** 's. It is like how British Gas increases the energy bills and keeps them there whilst the price of fuel is dropping in order to screw over costumers for increased profits.

[rory_20_uk]

Because it is aimed at currency speculation and trading markets and it is indeed these markets which will be taxed. Pensions usually invest into shares and bonds for growth, the tax effectively doesn't affect these at all.

However, what I have read is that companies are pushing the costs of the tax onto other people, to make them pay for the increase. This isn't actually what the tax does, it is companies being ruthless and total :daisy: 's. It is like how British Gas increases the energy bills and keeps them there whilst the price of fuel is dropping in order to screw over costumers for increased profits.

Anger is taken out at the wrong people.

It also illustrates how those who make legislation appear to look at the world and then do a first order change to what they'd hope the world to be. There appears to be no second order thinking going on (how will the world react to the change). But I guess these are the morons who made drugs illegal to stop drugs being used.

Yes, it might not be those making the law at fault, but thinking that companies would cheerfully accept a loss of profits without doing anything to mitigate against it is idiotic.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

Because it is aimed at currency speculation and trading markets and it is indeed these markets which will be taxed. Pensions usually invest into shares and bonds for growth, the tax effectively doesn't affect these at all.

However, what I have read is that companies are pushing the costs of the tax onto other people, to make them pay for the increase. This isn't actually what the tax does, it is companies being ruthless and total :daisy: 's. It is like how British Gas increases the energy bills and keeps them there whilst the price of fuel is dropping in order to screw over costumers for increased profits.

Anger is taken out at the wrong people.

Currency speculation doesn't wound a currency unless it has some kind of weakness to begin with.

Japan has been bet against for the last 20yr and it's broke so many speculators it has become a stock market meme.


This is all about the Euro and the euro was holed below the waterline by the movement of capital from the core to periphery seeking larger returns on investment.

Currency specualtion never came into it until the ECB made it a neccesity for investor to protect themselves from potential bond market loses.

[InsaneApache]

I wonder why taxation is seen as the solution rather than the problem it actually is?

[gaelic cowboy]

I wonder why taxation is seen as the solution rather than the problem it actually is?

cos everyone from the private to the public sector likes spending other peoples money

[SoFarSoGood]

Because it is aimed at currency speculation and trading markets and it is indeed these markets which will be taxed. Pensions usually invest into shares and bonds for growth, the tax effectively doesn't affect these at all.

What is wrong with shorting on bonds that are undervalued? I do quite well with it occasionaly though I usualy stick to safer investments. The market represents an informed opinion - and not a political or utopian dream opinion - of the value. The FTT (as there are now calling it) is an attempt to do away with any other informed opinion on the real state of affairs. Guess how they plan to use the income:

- improve the absorption of country-specific economic shocks, through an insurance-type mechanism between euro area countries.

- support structural reforms in relation with an integrated economic policy framework, in which euro area Member States could enter into arrangements of a contractual nature with EU institutions.

What does that even mean? They's fools would produce 50 pages of meaningless babble on how to boil an egg (safely).

[Beskar]

From the website about costs to the public:

No, because Financial Transaction Taxes (FTTs) are specifically aimed at casino-style trading, and the customer-base of hedge funds and investment banks is comprised primarily of high net worth individuals, not ordinary people. Hedge funds, investment banking divisions of large banks, and dedicated investment banks dominate this market, and so taxes on an FTT would fall primarily on these companies and corporations.

As FTTs are targeted at casino banking operations, they can easily be designed in a way that protects the investments of ordinary people and businesses. Like other taxes, specific exemptions and punitive measures can be built in to protect e.g. lending to businesses or exchanging holiday money.

The IMF has studied who will end up paying transaction taxes, and has concluded that they would in all likelihood be ‘highly progressive’. This means they would fall on the richest institutions and individuals in society, in a similar way to capital gains tax. This is in complete contrast to VAT, which falls disproportionately on the poorest people.

[rory_20_uk]

Yet VAT is not levied on things deemed to be essentials - although there is a massive amount of VAT on cigarettes and alcohol (and fuel).

Capital gains tax again falls on the richest who dumbly leave all assets under their name until time of death. Unsurprisingly, they have the money to pay for systems to mean that the percentage they pay is low. I imagine those narrowly over the threshold pay the most, and then quickly dropping off... again a nice example of no thoughts of how the system adapts to the new tax.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

the customer-base of hedge funds and investment banks is comprised primarily of high net worth individuals, not ordinary people.

i believe these are heavily invested in by pension funds, ergo, pensions will be hit by a FT tax.

i also don't accept there is anything wrong or immoral with high-speed transactions, they are a function of the market and help reduce risk by correctly price pricing assets.

[Beskar]

i also don't accept there is anything wrong or immoral with high-speed transactions, they are a function of the market and help reduce risk by correctly price pricing assets.

False, it is effectively a 'money laundering scheme' which exploits and manipulation of the differences between currencies for 'profit'. takes money from governments (thus our taxes, thus us) by fiddling the system for easy money. One of the things a universal single currency will get rid of, and it will be a good thing.

[rory_20_uk]

False, it is effectively a 'money laundering scheme' which exploits and manipulation of the differences between currencies for 'profit'. takes money from governments (thus our taxes, thus us) by fiddling the system for easy money. One of the things a universal single currency will get rid of, and it will be a good thing. So it

You are aware that there are loads of futures markets, right? Even if currency is one of (if not the) biggest one, closing it will merely move elsewhere.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

False, it is effectively a 'money laundering scheme' which exploits and manipulation of the differences between currencies for 'profit'. takes money from governments (thus our taxes, thus us) by fiddling the system for easy money. One of the things a universal single currency will get rid of, and it will be a good thing.

you do realise you can only short something like a currency or comodities etc etc if someone has taken the other side of the deal.

[Beskar]

you do realise you can only short something like a currency or comodities etc etc if someone has taken the other side of the deal.

Which is the governments involved. Since they are changing currencies with those governments, rather like you want to change Sterling into Euro when you are travelling aboard without the overpriced middle-men. Hence, it is us the tax payers which ends up getting ripped off.

Another solution would be artificially setting the prices, but then that brings about another host of issues and massive complaints.

[gaelic cowboy]

Which is the governments involved. Since they are changing currencies with those governments, rather like you want to change Sterling into Euro when you are travelling aboard without the overpriced middle-men. Hence, it is us the tax payers which ends up getting ripped off.

Another solution would be artificially setting the prices, but then that brings about another host of issues and massive complaints.

Governments are not responsible for the value of a currency in fact they haven't been since they started letting currencies float.

People who buy currency in order to short it are betting that said currency is overvalued, which quite frankly it is in the majority of peripheral europe.

[SoFarSoGood]

Regadless of who it will hurt most the basic fact is that unless all the rest of the world agrees and does the same trading in Europe will become more expensive. Great idea :wall:

Spreading some more prize winning 'peace' in Athens today:

7454

[SoFarSoGood]

New EU poster:

7455

I count more hammers and sickles and Muslim Crescents than Chritian Crosses...

[Furunculus]

New EU poster:

7455

I count more hammers and sickles and Muslim Crescents than Chritian Crosses...

i noticed that this morning.

[Kralizec]

Where did you find that?

[Furunculus]

ed west telegraph blog.

[Kralizec]

Property bubbles do not account for why unit production costs between Germany and France vary some 20%, between Germany and Greece more. In short 'property bubbles' are a symptom and not the cause.

Property bubbles were the cause for much of Spain's and Ireland's trouble. Because when the bubble bursts there are lots of debts with insufficient collateral behind them.

Wages are an important part of the problem too, at least for some of those countries. Germany followed a policy of limited wage increases, almost none in real terms, for over a decade. Italy and Greece did the opposite out of their own volition, the euro did not force them to do so.


And there you were accusing us of being impolite. You're allowed to call us Nazis, mad, etc etc even in the European Parliament when our only 'crime' is to disagree. However the howls of self rightous indignation when you are insulted...

Oh please. The drunk comment was a friendly jab, or at least intended to be so. You were being inconsistent. And as for the "don't let the door hit you on the way out" comment, I stand by it. I'll respect whatever decision the UK makes, wether it's staying in or going out. But truth be told I'm getting rather tired of the eurosceptic rethoric and the threats of leaving while the UK simply never decides to actually leave.

And the point still stand: the vast majority of name-calling that surrounds EU discussions comes from eurosceptics.


Ok so Lisbon was Constitution 2? Firstly: If so the Irish vote on Lisbon merely supported the French and Dutch votes. Secondly: Since it is "not practical or reasonable to start from scratch because the ratification fails in a single member state" why not ban such votes and even General Elections that produce results that may hinder 'progress'? The true apologists for dictatorship would have a field day but the essence of your arguement is that the 'project' is too important for mere people to be allowed to decide. How though can you claim that it is done with the consent of the people?

And the second Irish vote contradicted the earlier referendums. Your point is? Granted, the whole process leading up to the Lisbon treaty has been a train wreck, but you guys are pretty selective in your support of referendums. A single "no" vote, according to your logic, means that there can never be a legitimate treaty, even (as in the case of the Irish) if it's later overturned in another referendum.

As for my government: allthough the constitution referendum returned a "no" a couple of years later the parties involved decide to ratify Lisbon by a parliamentary vote instead of consulting the people. A lot of people were unhappy about how things were done, and it's probably one of the reasons why the CDA (the biggest coalition party at the time) lost heavily in the subsequent elections. That's democracy in action. Regardless, polls have consistently shown that the Dutch people still think EU membership is beneficial, usually around 2/3 of the population.


I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was undemocratic.

You missed the "unprecedented", then?

The MP's of Italy are the only ones who have a democratic mandate. And they made the decision to install Monti. Monti did have something of a 70% approval rating when he entered office, though that has dwindled since - understandably so, because he was put there for the sole purpose of tackling unpopular reforms.


How about your Prime Minister? Monti has not been elected by any of the public... He was made a member of the Italian equivalent of the House of Lords the day before the MPs 'elected' him Prime Minister. Now I have problems with one Cabinet Minister taking over as PM from another (Brown after Blair etc) as Brown himself was not leader when they came to Government. Brown was however elected in his constituency... Monti nothing.

In his constituency - exactly. Gordon Brown was elected in Kirkcaldy, with less than 30,000 votes total. The rest of the UK population who voted for Labour did so under the understanding that Blair would be Prime Minister. Halfway through the UK suddenly got a PM that nobody expected from the outset, and who as a MP only has a democratic mandate from a miniscule part of the population. Not really that different from Monti, when you think about it.

[Kralizec]

ed west telegraph blog.

Can't seem to find it. There's a Hannan entry with the same poster, though.

If it's real (according to him it's in the Commission building, somewhere) then I certainly hope someone will be fired over this.

[Sarmatian]

What's that Shinto thingy doing there?

[Fragony]

What's that Shinto thingy doing there?

Why does Serbia belong anywhere, I don't know. But Servia also has to join it seems. Why, just for the nobel price I am not that stupid.

[SoFarSoGood]

Property bubbles were the cause for much of Spain's and Ireland's trouble. Because when the bubble bursts there are lots of debts with insufficient collateral behind them.

Wages are an important part of the problem too, at least for some of those countries. Germany followed a policy of limited wage increases, almost none in real terms, for over a decade. Italy and Greece did the opposite out of their own volition, the euro did not force them to do so.



Oh please. The drunk comment was a friendly jab, or at least intended to be so. You were being inconsistent. And as for the "don't let the door hit you on the way out" comment, I stand by it. I'll respect whatever decision the UK makes, wether it's staying in or going out. But truth be told I'm getting rather tired of the eurosceptic rethoric and the threats of leaving while the UK simply never decides to actually leave.

And the point still stand: the vast majority of name-calling that surrounds EU discussions comes from eurosceptics.



And the second Irish vote contradicted the earlier referendums. Your point is? Granted, the whole process leading up to the Lisbon treaty has been a train wreck, but you guys are pretty selective in your support of referendums. A single "no" vote, according to your logic, means that there can never be a legitimate treaty, even (as in the case of the Irish) if it's later overturned in another referendum.

As for my government: allthough the constitution referendum returned a "no" a couple of years later the parties involved decide to ratify Lisbon by a parliamentary vote instead of consulting the people. A lot of people were unhappy about how things were done, and it's probably one of the reasons why the CDA (the biggest coalition party at the time) lost heavily in the subsequent elections. That's democracy in action. Regardless, polls have consistently shown that the Dutch people still think EU membership is beneficial, usually around 2/3 of the population.



You missed the "unprecedented", then?

The MP's of Italy are the only ones who have a democratic mandate. And they made the decision to install Monti. Monti did have something of a 70% approval rating when he entered office, though that has dwindled since - understandably so, because he was put there for the sole purpose of tackling unpopular reforms.



In his constituency - exactly. Gordon Brown was elected in Kirkcaldy, with less than 30,000 votes total. The rest of the UK population who voted for Labour did so under the understanding that Blair would be Prime Minister. Halfway through the UK suddenly got a PM that nobody expected from the outset, and who as a MP only has a democratic mandate from a miniscule part of the population. Not really that different from Monti, when you think about it.

The poster is referred to by Conservative MEP Dan Hannan in his Telegraph blog; http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100185609/you-thought-the-whole-eussr-thing-was-over-the-top-have-a-look-at-this-poster/


Property bubbles were the cause for much of Spain's and Ireland's trouble. Because when the bubble bursts there are lots of debts with insufficient collateral behind them.

What about Greece and Portugal? If these property bubbles are the sole cause of the problem, as you suggest, then surely they must have occured everywhere? But they didn't which proves it was not the property bubbles in themselves that caused the inequalities between the Northern and Southern blocs.


And the point still stand: the vast majority of name-calling that surrounds EU discussions comes from eurosceptics.

I think most UKIP MEPs would dispute that.


And the second Irish vote contradicted the earlier referendums. Your point is? Granted, the whole process leading up to the Lisbon treaty has been a train wreck, but you guys are pretty selective in your support of referendums. A single "no" vote, according to your logic, means that there can never be a legitimate treaty, even (as in the case of the Irish) if it's later overturned in another referendum.

The point is that the Constitution/Lisbon was voted down three times in succession. Why was another vote needed that effectively over-ruled the votes of the French and Dutch people? Just keep on asking until you get a reply that suits you and then sod everyone else who ever voted no...


In his constituency - exactly. Gordon Brown was elected in Kirkcaldy, with less than 30,000 votes total.

Which 29,600 odd more votes than have ever been cast for Monti. Did the Italian MPs have a choice of candidates... sadly not. Some election!

[Beskar]

What's that Shinto thingy doing there?

Because there are Shinto Buddhists in Europe?

The whole message was that we could all live together happily, there is nothing wrong with that.

[SoFarSoGood]

Except that the hammer and sickle are banned in some countries and the majority by far of Europe is Christian.

Nice Tweet:

Queen_Europe Angela Merkel (not) #Eurosummit in brief: we agreed to put in place the legislative basis for further disagreement.

[rvg]

Because there are Shinto Buddhists in Europe?

The whole message was that we could all live together happily, there is nothing wrong with that.

In that case we need a Scientology symbol in there as well.

[Kralizec]

What about Greece and Portugal? If these property bubbles are the sole cause of the problem, as you suggest, then surely they must have occured everywhere? But they didn't which proves it was not the property bubbles in themselves that caused the inequalities between the Northern and Southern blocs.

Never claimed any of that, so I won't adress it.


I think most UKIP MEPs would dispute that.

Well they would, wouldn't they? On the eurosceptic side they're responsible for a large part of trashy rethoric.


Which 29,600 odd more votes than have ever been cast for Monti. Did the Italian MPs have a choice of candidates... sadly not. Some election!

I don't know how they arrived at the choice of Monti, or wether there were other serious contenders. Doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. Monti's cabinet is sanctioned by democraticly elected MP's and is therefore legitimate.

Who are you to decide wether Italian politics are democratic or not, anyway?

[InsaneApache]

Because there are Shinto Buddhists in Europe?

The whole message was that we could all live together happily, there is nothing wrong with that.

So your quite happy with your pet EU project to depict symbols of torture, murder, ethnic-cleansing, mass starvation and terror. Probably the most evil ideology ever.

*boggle*

[Beskar]

Except that the hammer and sickle are banned in some countries and the majority by far of Europe is Christian.

Right, the Hammer and Sickle is obviously an oversight by the arts department but it is pretty obvious why it was there, it is someone trying to say Europe tolerates everyone. They needed some QA before releasing.

As for your second point, you are clearly not understanding the message it is trying to say. Putting a massive cross, a picture of Calvin, Darwin Fish, Martin Luther and sticking a little Crecent in the corner doesn't really express the values it is trying to portray. That of acceptance and religious freedom. It is not meant to be accurate.

[InsaneApache]

It is not meant to be accurate.

I wouldn't have expected any less from the omni-shambles that is the EU.


Right, the Hammer and Sickle is obviously an oversight by the arts department but it is pretty obvious why it was there

For balance they should have the swastika there as well. After all the EU embraces everyone.

[Beskar]

So your quite happy with your pet EU project to depict symbols of torture, murder, ethnic-cleansing, mass starvation and terror. Probably the most evil ideology ever.

*boggle*

1) I don't agree to EU in its current format, therefore, it is not my "pet project". Because you are a Tory, it doesn't mean you agree with everything David Cameron says and does and actively champion it.

2) The symbol doesn't actually depict that, it is like arguing Buddhists are proud owners of Mien Kampf.

3) Meaning of symbol aside, it doesn't take much of an educational guess to understand why the slip-up occurred.

However, it is not clear reason to start banging a war-drum up and getting your knickers in a twist.

[rory_20_uk]

For balance they should have the swastika there as well. After all the EU embraces everyone.

Except nasty people. Like democratically elected governments of other states.
But it likes nice people. Like undemocratically elected governments of other states.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Because you are a Tory, it doesn't mean you agree with everything David Cameron says and does and actively champion it.

What! Because I'm not left wing therefore I have to be a tory. I wouldn't lend them a penny never mind my vote.

I'm as disgusted with the tories as I am with all the big three partys. None of them represent or speak for me.

For the record: Voted in '79-tory

Voted in '83 SDP

Voted in '87 tory

I've abstained ever since.

[Furunculus]

I wouldn't have expected any less from the omni-shambles that is the EU.

For balance they should have the swastika there as well. After all the EU embraces everyone.

indeed, they can't decide whether they have allowed direct bank recapitalization from the ESM, or not. iz confoozed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9620715/Merkel-wins-major-victory-over-Hollande.html

indeed, wop a swastika in there and i'll be happy, after all, there are quite a few neo-nazi's in europe too, and we would want to infringe their human rights by denying them representation, now would we?

[SoFarSoGood]

Never claimed any of that, so I won't adress it.


but I resist the suggestion that the Euro is solely responsible for each and every problem these countries face and that jumping ship is an easy, painless way out.

So first you reject the notion that it is anything to do with the euro, then say the problems were caused by property bubbles but now can't explain how this applies to all countries so now you don't want to talk about it anymore.


Well they would, wouldn't they? On the eurosceptic side they're responsible for a large part of trashy rethoric.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb8r6rvcgxA


I don't know how they arrived at the choice of Monti, or wether there were other serious contenders. Doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. Monti's cabinet is sanctioned by democraticly elected MP's and is therefore legitimate.

A choice of one candidate, who has NO public approval, is NOT a democratic election.


Who are you to decide wether Italian politics are democratic or not, anyway?

I see... Because I am not Italian my opinion is irrelevant? On this count the holocaust or the 'ethnic cleansing' of the Balkans was nobody elses business.

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." Jean Monnet 1952

[Kralizec]

So first you reject the notion that it is anything to do with the euro, then say the problems were caused by property bubbles but now can't explain how this applies to all countries so now you don't want to talk about it anymore.

Did your education end at the age of 12? Because I have never seen an educated adult so lacking in reading comprehension.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb8r6rvcgxA

Ok, watching that was a waste of time.

- Bloom interrupts Schultz by shouting "Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"
- he was given the opportunity to apologize, but instead of that, he added some more by calling Schultz an undemocratic fascist
- he was asked to leave, because he clearly violated the house rules of the EP
- Bloom screams and yells like a petulant brat

This was actually one of the counterexamples I was going to use.

Farage accuses the president of double standards, which would be a fair enough criticism, but I don't suppose you have any actual examples of that, do you?


A choice of one candidate, who has NO public approval, is NOT a democratic election.

Yes it is. You may want to look up the concept of "indirect election".

See, that was easy.

Since it's clear that we're not going to agree on this point, I'll not discuss this any further.

[SoFarSoGood]

Did your education end at the age of 12? Because I have never seen an educated adult so lacking in reading comprehension.

Well so much for the insults... But the fact is you have totaly failed to explain why half of Europe has needed bailing out. All you can say is that not the euros fault and mutter about property bubbles but that does not explain the Greek or Portuguese problems. Perhaps you would care to edicate me? But no... not talking about it anymore.


but I don't suppose you have any actual examples of that, do you?

Actualy I do... What Mr Bloom was referring to were the accusations of 'mob rule' and 'being like the Nazis' after the demonstration about the Irish Lisbon vote.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68


Yes it is. You may want to look up the concept of "indirect election".

You must miss that haven of democracy that was the USSR where such rules were the norm.

[Conradus]

I don't know a single country in Western Europe that elects its premier directly. Everywhere a Parliament is elected which in turn chooses a premier. He DOES NOT have to be a member of that Parliament to be elected. How you can compare this to the USSR and other dictatures goes beyond me.

[Kralizec]

The only thing that came close was Schultz saying that fear and social decline have always led to fascism. That's not the same as accusing the "no voters" of being fascists. The phrase "mob rule" is not included in that video.

I've already wasted 25 minutes of my life by watching eurosceptic clip-shows that prove nothing. I'm going to ignore you for the time being.

EDIT: just to add,

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." Jean Monnet 1952

This quotation is a fake.

[SoFarSoGood]

I don't know a single country in Western Europe that elects its premier directly. Everywhere a Parliament is elected which in turn chooses a premier. He DOES NOT have to be a member of that Parliament to be elected. How you can compare this to the USSR and other dictatures goes beyond me.

Do you get a choice between cadidates? Did Italy? By the way in Britain the PM has to be a member of Parliament (Lords or Commons in theory but the last PM who sat in the Lords was in the 1960s).


I'm going to ignore you for the time being.

How convenient.

[Sarmatian]

Why does Serbia belong anywhere, I don't know. But Servia also has to join it seems. Why, just for the nobel price I am not that stupid.
Serbia is a continent. We don't want to join EU. Later, when you get all European nations in there, we're just gonna conquer ya. Could do it now, but we'd have to declare war on each nation separately and that's just too much paperwork.

[Kralizec]

On the poster from the previous page:

http://www.europe4all.org

It's a private organisation, so the entire controversy is a tad irrelevant. Good to see Hannan jumping at every slight opportunity to bash the EU though, it's one of my ways of checking wether the world still exists as I know it.

[Beskar]

On the poster from the previous page:
http://www.europe4all.org

It's a private organisation, so the entire controversy is a tad irrelevant. Good to see Hannan jumping at every slight opportunity to bash the EU though, it's one of my ways of checking wether the world still exists as I know it.

I suspected as much. It wasn't smelling right at all, which is why I thought it must have been a mistake some where in an art department. Not being related does make sense.

[SoFarSoGood]

Perhaps one of you 'educated' types could show me where on that link the poster occurs? I can't seem to find it.

[Beskar]

Perhaps one of you 'educated' types could show me where on that link the poster occurs? I can't seem to find it.

https://i.imgur.com/q8Mie.png

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't know a single country in Western Europe that elects its premier directly. Everywhere a Parliament is elected which in turn chooses a premier. He DOES NOT have to be a member of that Parliament to be elected. How you can compare this to the USSR and other dictatures goes beyond me.

Any place that is essentially following the Westminster system can only elect a Prime Minister from it's currently elected members of parliament.

[Kralizec]

Westminster, yes, but not all "parliamentary" systems.

In the Neth's, and Belgium too I believe, it's actually illegal for a minister to also hold a seat in parliament. If they're elected in a chamber they'll have to give up their seat.

In the UK and Italy on the other hand having a seat in parliament is mandatory so Monti was given a senate seat for just that purpose.

[SoFarSoGood]

so Monti was given a senate seat for just that purpose.

An unelected one.

[gaelic cowboy]

Westminster, yes, but not all "parliamentary" systems.

In the Neth's, and Belgium too I believe, it's actually illegal for a minister to also hold a seat in parliament. If they're elected in a chamber they'll have to give up their seat.

In the UK and Italy on the other hand having a seat in parliament is mandatory so Monti was given a senate seat for just that purpose.

I couldn't give a toss what they do elsewhere this is Ireland an were keeping our system.

[Kralizec]

Did I say you had to?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Westminster, yes, but not all "parliamentary" systems.

In the Neth's, and Belgium too I believe, it's actually illegal for a minister to also hold a seat in parliament. If they're elected in a chamber they'll have to give up their seat.

In the UK and Italy on the other hand having a seat in parliament is mandatory so Monti was given a senate seat for just that purpose.

It's not a proper Parliamentary System then - the whole point is to remove the separation between executive and legislature. This is deliberate and is done for two reasons.

1. To reduce the power of personality politics - most obvious in 2010 when the "Clegg effect" utterly failed to generate actual gains for the Lib-Dems.

2. To hamstring the executive as much as possible and make it vulnerable to the wrath of the MP's elected by the people.

Separation of Powers - just say no.

[Conradus]

Wait separation of powers is a bad thing suddenly?

Other one, the premier of Flanders was not an elected parliamentarian when he first got his position. He replaced the elected one in the middle of the term when he left one of the biggest employers' organisations.

[Kralizec]

It's not a proper Parliamentary System then - the whole point is to remove the separation between executive and legislature. This is deliberate and is done for two reasons.

1. To reduce the power of personality politics - most obvious in 2010 when the "Clegg effect" utterly failed to generate actual gains for the Lib-Dems.

2. To hamstring the executive as much as possible and make it vulnerable to the wrath of the MP's elected by the people.

Separation of Powers - just say no.

A lot of countries stole your idea and added variations to it, so you Brits no longer get to decide what a "proper" parliamentary system is ~;p

The defining feature is that the executive depends on the willingness of parliament to support it, and that conversely it can be sacked by a vote of no confidence.

That ministers can't have seats in parliament over here is, as you indicated, meant to seperate powers. It's thought that parliament would be a more credible check on the executive if the executive doesn't get a vote.

[Greyblades]

A lot of countries stole your idea and added variations to it, so you Brits no longer get to decide what a "proper" parliamentary system is ~;p


Who determines how a proper Ipad is supposed to be, Apple or the man who cracked it for third party apps?

[Sarmatian]

Are some people actually arguing that British parliamentary system is the only valid/legitimate/democratic system there is?