Euro Area

[Louis VI the Fat]

oops, it would appear that not everyone is delighted with the Sarkozy/Merkel template Pour Das European Economy:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...745383,00.html

hilarious that people might have believed otherwise..........

Meh. Merkel and Sarkozy needs to grow some and send the German tanks across the European plains, backed by French nukes and aircraft carriers.


Europe needs Teutonic discipline, not Greek thievery, Italian bookkeeping, Irish 'look mama no taxes' capitalism, East European mobsters/ultra-conservatists.

I don't care how much the little piggies mewl, the days of their socialist paradises and 'private profits, socialised risks'-capitalism must be over. Merkel must do to Europe what Thatcher did to Britain and impose some old-fashioned discipline.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm, what is “Teutonic discipline” worth in the boom years? Nothing more than the “Gaulish” version, which as you might remember means breaching such pacts.

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't care how much the little piggies mewl, the days of their socialist paradises and 'private profits, socialised risks'-capitalism must be over. Merkel must do to Europe what Thatcher did to Britain and impose some old-fashioned discipline.

The socialised risk is there because of the EU, there up to there necks in Eurozone IOU papers.

No bailout no socialised risk scalp the bonds now

[Furunculus]

Europe needs Teutonic discipline, not Greek thievery, Italian bookkeeping, Irish 'look mama no taxes' capitalism, East European mobsters/ultra-conservatists.

so the 'cause' of europe needs everybodys ideas on representative and democratic governance........................ as long as they are franco-german ideas?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meh. Merkel and Sarkozy needs to grow some and send the German tanks across the European plains, backed by French nukes and aircraft carriers.


Europe needs Teutonic discipline, not Greek thievery, Italian bookkeeping, Irish 'look mama no taxes' capitalism, East European mobsters/ultra-conservatists.

I don't care how much the little piggies mewl, the days of their socialist paradises and 'private profits, socialised risks'-capitalism must be over. Merkel must do to Europe what Thatcher did to Britain and impose some old-fashioned discipline.

So that would actually British dicipline, then? Why not couple that to British notions of honestly, fair play and public service? No?

Nothing we do here is ever popular on the mainland, unless they can claim they did it independantly, and it is somehow innate to a European people on a genetic level.

And yet we continue to be insulted by being labled "Europeans".

[Louis VI the Fat]

If I were EU president, then tomorrow morning at 09:00 I'd send dispatches to all European capitals stating that there must be fiscal restraint, debt curtailing, adjusted retirement ages, harmonised tax rates. I'd simultaneously order the bombers to take off. Then everybody has got until 9:05 to send a return dispatch of compliance.

Bow Europe must and bow Europe will before stern German financial discipline. Like Thatcher restored fiscal sense on Britain, so too the Franco-German alliance shall impose the same on the eurozone.

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.

So that would actually British dicipline, then? Why not couple that to British notions of honestly, fair play and public service? No?

Nothing we do here is ever popular on the mainland, unless they can claim they did it independantly, and it is somehow innate to a European people on a genetic level.

Britain is not part of the eurozone, so hence escapes the need for discipline yes.

However, Britain's financial discipline record is comparable to that of Ireland or Spain. One of the highest budget deficits. 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.

And yet we continue to be insulted by being labled "Europeans"

No, that is you insulting Europeans. Of which you are one yourself.

You are European as much as a rabbit is a mammal. You can not escape simple definition.

[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]

If I were EU president, then tomorrow morning at 09:00 I'd send dispatches to all European capitals stating that there must be fiscal restraint, debt curtailing, adjusted retirement ages, harmonised tax rates. I'd simultaneously order the bombers to take off. Then everybody has got until 9:05 to send a return dispatch of compliance.

Bow Europe must and bow Europe will before stern German financial discipline. Like Thatcher restored fiscal sense on Britain, so too the Franco-German alliance shall impose the same on the eurozone.

Whose bombers would that be? French ones, or German ones carrying American nukes? Under what authority will you begin military action? If Europe is one polity that would be akin to Saddam gassing the Kurds, wouldn't it?

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.

Despite the fact that Germany and France led the way in treaty-violating deficits?

Britain is not part of the eurozone, so hence escapes the need for discipline yes.

However, Britain's financial discipline record is comparable to that of Ireland or Spain. One of the highest budget deficits. 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.

....and now the most rigorous dicipline that the Union hacks are out on their arses and some of them have been convicted of Fraud.

No, that is you insulting Europeans. Of which you are one yourself.

You are European as much as a rabbit is a mammal. You can not escape simple definition.

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.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

As for me, the one thing I hate more than an international court protecting my rights against my government, it is no protection against my government.


Here's an idea: let the UK government uphold the rights of Britons, then it does not face international meddling.


If the government infringes upon your rights, you have one instance of appeal. At the ECHR. Me I'd let my government strip me of this right over my dead body. Just why others would not only not do that, but actively urge their government to strip them of their right of appeal is beyond me. Churchill must turning in his grave, what with the current UK parliament voting to strip Britons of the right of appeal he ensured for them. To think Churchill and his generation fought so hard for it.

[Greyblades]

You seem to be under the impression that I agree with the sentiment.

It's less that they dont want a power protecting thier rights, they dont want that power to be European or any power for that matter that isn't british based. And yes as you said churchill helped found ECHR but do you realy expect most people to know that?

There is an undercurrent of resentment in the UK over the European union being able to interfere(and does to an extent; the EU courts outrank the House of lords in the court heirarchy) with internal matters and for most one look at the E in ECHR and they dont wan't it.

[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.

[Furunculus]

As for me, the one thing I hate more than an international court protecting my rights against my government, it is no protection against my government.

Here's an idea: let the UK government uphold the rights of Britons, then it does not face international meddling.

If the government infringes upon your rights, you have one instance of appeal. At the ECHR. Me I'd let my government strip me of this right over my dead body. Just why others would not only not do that, but actively urge their government to strip them of their right of appeal is beyond me. Churchill must turning in his grave, what with the current UK parliament voting to strip Britons of the right of appeal he ensured for them. To think Churchill and his generation fought so hard for it.

Or, alternatively, we can sort it out ourselves through the complex and sophisticated political institutions that we have evolved over nearly 1500 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot
Witenagemot > Curia Regis > Parliament of England > Parliament of GB > Parliament of the UK of GB and Ireland
c. 627-1066 > 1066-c. 1215 > c. 1215-1707 > 1707-1800 > 1801-1927

using a system of common law that has evolved to meet the expectations of the people over nearly 1000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#History
"The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,[28] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. "

[InsaneApache]

However, Britain's financial discipline record is comparable to that of Ireland or Spain. One of the highest budget deficits.

Hang on a minute. When I and others here on these boards pointed out that McRuin had mortgaged our grandkids future and borrowed and spent beyond reason, you were the one that said it wasn't so.

You can't have it both ways.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hang on a minute. When I and others here on these boards pointed out that McRuin had mortgaged our grandkids future and borrowed and spent beyond reason, you were the one that said it wasn't so.

You can't have it both ways.

Get out of this thread I nearly managed to get away with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or, alternatively, we can sort it out ourselves through the complex and sophisticated political institutions that we have evolved over nearly 1500 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot
Witenagemot > Curia Regis > Parliament of England > Parliament of GB > Parliament of the UK of GB and Ireland
c. 627-1066 > 1066-c. 1215 > c. 1215-1707 > 1707-1800 > 1801-1927

using a system of common law that has evolved to meet the expectations of the people over nearly 1000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#History
"The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,[28] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. "

I'm not sure that I would link the Witan with the current political settlement, but even if you date our parliamentary process back to the assension of William and Mary and the establishment of Parliament as "Soverign" you are looking at a pedigree of 300 years when none of the other regional powers in Europe can even count the age of their democracies in triple figures.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not sure that I would link the Witan with the current political settlement, but even if you date our parliamentary process back to the assension of William and Mary and the establishment of Parliament as "Soverign" you are looking at a pedigree of 300 years when none of the other regional powers in Europe can even count the age of their democracies in triple figures.

What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm not sure that I would link the Witan with the current political settlement, but even if you date our parliamentary process back to the assension of William and Mary and the establishment of Parliament as "Soverign" you are looking at a pedigree of 300 years when none of the other regional powers in Europe can even count the age of their democracies in triple figures.

Strictly speaking I wouldnt count UK as a real democracy either I mean ye still have the monarchy

By contrast France and Ireland are older.

France 1958 fifth republic

Ireland 1948 first republic

UK no republic

[Greyblades]

Aye we have our royals but they haven't been able to do a thing on thier own since the 1600's, the power's all in the house of commons which is close enough.

[Furunculus]

What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.

none of which does to answer why we should not repose trust in our democratically accountable and representatively legitimate political institutions to answer these conundrums of governance for us.....?

Aye we have our royals but they haven't been able to do a thing on thier own since the 1600's, the power's all in the house of commons which is close enough.

i think he knows this very well, and is engaging in what is colloquially known as a cheeky jibe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Actually, I believe the Isle of Man has the title of "oldest Democracy" at over one thousand years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynwald

In any case, I said "regional powers in Europe" which does not actually include Iceland or Switzerland, or Mann.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.[/QUOTE]

Oh well done, the British people are collectively learning impaired.

Loius, "European" is an identity, it is for the in-group to restrict access to others it considers "in" and reject the out-group but you cannot demand that another group be included in your collective identity against their will. If the British people collectively do not believe themselves to be European then they are not, and you cannot force it upon them - that would be a form of cultural genicide.

[Furunculus]

Loius, "European" is an identity, it is for the in-group to restrict access to others it considers "in" and reject the out-group but you cannot demand that another group be included in your collective identity against their will. If the British people collectively do not believe themselves to be European then they are not, and you cannot force it upon them - that would be a form of cultural genicide.

quite, but he rather ignored that point when i made it, so i don't expect anything other than silence this time either.

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ignore it?


Everything I have written I've done so under the assumption that we are all talking about Europe in a cultural-political sense.


Europe as a geographical concept is meaningless to me, and I fully discard it.