Euro Area

[Furunculus]

Like the miners unions in Thatcher's Britain, the Eurozone periphery has found means to live off the subsidies of the centre. They all want the hard German currency. But when one reminds them just why Germany's currency is so hard, they squeek louder than my two pot bellied piglets.

Also, Britain is the world champion sheltering dubious firms and in providing shady, semi or pseudo legal financial services. The City in London is the pirate's lair and playhouse in one for the world's billionaire crooks and mobsters. A Somalia and Dubai combined.

sure, just so long as we accept that the 'answer' is an unrepresentative and authoriatian quangocracy............?

it's the way we roll, don't like it, kick us out.

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

hehe, sounds just like you louis!

http://www.economist.com/node/18114465

Already, some euro members hint that Britain, Poland and Sweden had an unfair advantage in 2009-10 because they could regain competitiveness by allowing their currencies to fall. It is easy to imagine such complaints leading to changes in the rules over state aid or to attacks on the four freedoms of movement—of goods, services, capital and labour—that underpin the single market.

[Louis VI the Fat]

hehe, sounds just like you louis!

http://www.economist.com/node/18114465

Yes, it does sound like me. European countries ought not to compete with one another with monetary policies.

When I say that, I am a EUSSR commie. When I say that China ought not to artificially keep its currency low, that is, compete with monetary policies, I am applauded as a free market champion.

[Furunculus]

When I say that, I am a EUSSR commie. When I say that China ought not to artificially keep its currency low, that is, compete with monetary policies, I am applauded as a free market champion.

sure, but the difference is between the fact that one is arguing inside its own polity and its own currency, whereas the other is argueing to entirely different polity with its own priorities, which it should pay for via a floating currency - want to run a trade surplus then watch your currency appreciate.

the problem is, that no-one has asked the peoples of europe whether they are ready to become a single polity, with a single economic regime designed to pay for a unified welfare provision...............

[Louis VI the Fat]

the problem is, that no-one has asked the peoples of europe whether they are ready to become a single polity, with a single economic regime designed to pay for a unified welfare provision...............

Nobody was asked whether railroads and plumbing ought to have been build. Nobody was ever asked whether their countries should've joined NATO, the UN or the WTO. The peoples of Europe do not get directly asked a great many things.


They were all, however, without exception, democracies when they joined. Representative democracies are commonly accepted to represent the will of the people. All member states are representative democracies who joined of their own free will, and who remain a member as a free, democratic and independent state.

[Furunculus]

Nobody was asked whether railroads and plumbing ought to have been build. Nobody was ever asked whether their countries should've joined NATO, the UN or the WTO. The peoples of Europe do not get directly asked a great many things.


They were all, [snip].......... stuff

and yet people make such a fuss about representative democracy, i wonder why....?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nobody was asked whether railroads and plumbing ought to have been build. Nobody was ever asked whether their countries should've joined NATO, the UN or the WTO. The peoples of Europe do not get directly asked a great many things.


They were all, however, without exception, democracies when they joined. Representative democracies are commonly accepted to represent the will of the people. All member states are representative democracies who joined of their own free will, and who remain a member as a free, democratic and independent state.

When they joined the people were not told their government would begin handing over soverign powers.

Witness the ECHR trying to tell Britain how to order its democracy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428488

They have been roundly told to sod off.

At this rate it may well be the ECHR which forces Britain to withdraw from European co-operation in general.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Europeans live on the European mainland, calling Britain part of Europe is like calling Wales part of England, and will result in a similarly violent reaction. Still, the French in particular have a centuries-old habit of rubbishing British culture and being litterally lynched as a result. So feel free to continue.

Well obviously the correct analogy here would be to state that a person from Belfast is British, despite there being a bit of water in between the isles of Britain and Ireland.

Some Europeans live on the continent. Some on peninsulas. And some Europeans live on one of several thousands of European islands, from Cyprus in the southeast Mediterranean to Iceland in the northern Atlantic.

Just because a Dane or a Sicilian lives on an island does not mean he is not European. No more than Northern Ireland should somehow not be British.

When they joined the people were not told their government would begin handing over soverign powers.

Witness the ECHR trying to tell Britain how to order its democracy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428488

They have been roundly told to sod off.

At this rate it may well be the ECHR which forces Britain to withdraw from European co-operation in general.

Well be my guest and keep telling the ECHR to sod off, because it is not part of the EU. No more than the World Wildlife Foundation is.


The European Court for Human Rights was established in the wake of WWII, to protect the basic human rights of all Europeans. The main instigator was none other than Winston Churchill. Hence Britain was a founding member, and as a signatory, British subjects have been granted the right of appeal at this court in case of breach of their rights by their government. Until, that is, now. Now, nationalist hysteria means Britons are screaming at the thought of the rights of their government being limited by treaty. Apparantly, to the jingoists the word of the British government should not be worth the paper it is written on.

It will be a sad precedent if Britain, sixty years after Churchill, on the wave of nationalist hysteria over 'infringements of sovereignity' will suddenly declare its government above human rights and above treaties it has signed. The autocracies of Europe, existing and sleeping, will be cheering on this bitter step. To think it is only twenty five years ago under Thatcher when Britain used the ECHR to castigate Eastern Euope, to demand their governments guarantee the human rights of their citizens like they had promised.

Nowadays, the British explode in a rage at the mere thought of an international court protecting the rights of individual Britons against the British government. Sad. Basically, British MP's have requested their government must suspend the rights that were granted by the British government to individual Britons.

What happened to the British instinct to curb the powers of their government?

Both Churchill and Thatcher knew better. One founded, and one staunchly supported, the ECHR. Sad to see their proud legacy flushed down the toilet.

[Furunculus]

Some Europeans live on the continent. Some on peninsulas. And some Europeans live on one of several thousands of European islands, from Cyprus in the southeast Mediterranean to Iceland in the northern Atlantic.

Well be my guest and keep telling the ECHR to sod off, because it is not part of the EU. No more than the World Wildlife Foundation is.

It will be a sad precedent if Britain, sixty years after Churchill, on the wave of nationalist hysteria over 'infringements of sovereignity' will suddenly declare its government above human rights and above treaties it has signed.

fine if you want to define european in a geographical sense, less fine if in a political sense.

but of course the EU is applying to join the ECHR as a political entity in and of itself..........

no, britain would be saying that justice is a matter for the british people to determine, that is good or bad depending on the quality of british justice. put it this way; it isn't giving me a nightmares.

[Greyblades]

Methinks most brits see it more of a foriegn organisation trying to tell us what to do, which in and of itself is probably the only thing we hate more than our own government trying to tell us what to do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well obviously the correct analogy here would be to state that a person from Belfast is British, despite there being a bit of water in between the isles of Britain and Ireland.

Some Europeans live on the continent. Some on peninsulas. And some Europeans live on one of several thousands of European islands, from Cyprus in the southeast Mediterranean to Iceland in the northern Atlantic.

Just because a Dane or a Sicilian lives on an island does not mean he is not European. No more than Northern Ireland should somehow not be British.

Well be my guest and keep telling the ECHR to sod off, because it is not part of the EU. No more than the World Wildlife Foundation is.


The European Court for Human Rights was established in the wake of WWII, to protect the basic human rights of all Europeans. The main instigator was none other than Winston Churchill. Hence Britain was a founding member, and as a signatory, British subjects have been granted the right of appeal at this court in case of breach of their rights by their government. Until, that is, now. Now, nationalist hysteria means Britons are screaming at the thought of the rights of their government being limited by treaty. Apparantly, to the jingoists the word of the British government should not be worth the paper it is written on.

It will be a sad precedent if Britain, sixty years after Churchill, on the wave of nationalist hysteria over 'infringements of sovereignity' will suddenly declare its government above human rights and above treaties it has signed. The autocracies of Europe, existing and sleeping, will be cheering on this bitter step. To think it is only twenty five years ago under Thatcher when Britain used the ECHR to castigate Eastern Euope, to demand their governments guarantee the human rights of their citizens like they had promised.

Nowadays, the British explode in a rage at the mere thought of an international court protecting the rights of individual Britons against the British government. Sad. Basically, British MP's have requested their government must suspend the rights that were granted by the British government to individual Britons.

What happened to the British instinct to curb the powers of their government?

Both Churchill and Thatcher knew better. One founded, and one staunchly supported, the ECHR. Sad to see their proud legacy flushed down the toilet.

Winston Churchill was great warrior and a considerable statesman, he is not a secular messiah. His decisions are not sacrosanct.

In any case, what happens when the ECHR becomes unjust itself?

I believe it no longer protects the rights of British citizens, it pushes a political agenda now - to try to change British culture and British democracy. We have a principle in Britain, that those who break the laws enacted by our democratically elected parliament may not determine the makeup of said parliament.

This decision would allow those MP's currently serving time for Fraud to vote again.

Would you prefer we return to rotten buroughs and MP's retaining their seats whilst in gaol?

Oh, and the fact that you didn't understand my point about England and Wales shows you don't understand the British peoples.