Euro Area

[SoFarSoGood]

How can Germany lose though your original assertion was that Germany is OWED money when in fact they have really been paid. The only thing they have to worry about at all is that no one leaves and if they do there target 2 is larger than there share. Now this essentially means Germany must have a contiually weak Euro to ensure continued trade with EZ economies, naturally this kills the other economies through deflation requiring bailouts.

As you have so eloquently pointed out if a country leaves the euro "the ECB may require all member states to pay for the shortfall as per there share of the overall ECB". Well the Spanish and Italians can't pay and France is not too healthy so who makes good the shortfall?

As for the printing money option the ECB tried that with the LTRO 1 and 2 cash injections into banks. The banks then bought their Governments debts and now face massive losses. Germany, for historical reasons (the hyper inflation of the 1920s) will not alow the ECB to print endless money. Mario Draghi says it is not the job of his institution to sort out the finances of EMU states. Its task is to ensure "price stability" ie. inflation.

It now transpires that the Spanish bank bailout is to be guaranteed by the sovereign so in effect it was a 'full fat' bailout just that the bailout money doesn't take precedence over other investors (as it did with Greece). Spanish papers say Spain may leave the euro but no doubt this is a threat for softer terms.

[gaelic cowboy]

As you have so eloquently pointed out if a country leaves the euro "the ECB may require all member states to pay for the shortfall as per there share of the overall ECB". Well the Spanish and Italians can't pay and France is not too healthy so who makes good the shortfall?.

Thats why no one will be asked to leave at least not big countries anyway, although it has still not been shown how someone can leave yet by countries who talk about forcing such things.

Thats why Germany is growing it's Target 2 credit by engaging in a massive trading surplus with EZ members, this will give it the credit at the ECB to pay for it's 18% share of the ECB.

Of course The ECB can print as many Euro as it likes and frankly it doesnt have to take a blind bit of notice of the Bundesbank cos were talking about a winding up of the Euro here.

As for the printing money option the ECB tried that with the LTRO 1 and 2 cash injections into banks. The banks then bought their Governments debts and now face massive losses. Germany, for historical reasons (the hyper inflation of the 1920s) will not alow the ECB to print endless money. Mario Draghi says it is not the job of his institution to sort out the finances of EMU states. Its task is to ensure "price stability" ie. inflation.

At the minute were experiencing massive deflation which is just as deadly and Germany is one member of a larger board, they cannot stop every decision just like they couldnt stop LTRO.

It now transpires that the Spanish bank bailout is to be guaranteed by the sovereign so in effect it was a 'full fat' bailout just that the bailout money doesn't take precedence over other investors (as it did with Greece). Spanish papers say Spain may leave the euro but no doubt this is a threat for softer terms.

Indeed just as I said could potentially happen about 50-60 pages back when I created this thread originally.

At the time I warned that if sovereigns were not separated from things like bank debt or the said debt was not inflated away then we were only going one way.

[SoFarSoGood]

Thats why no one will be asked to leave at least not big countries anyway, although it has still not been shown how someone can leave yet by countries who talk about forcing such things.

Which is what I said in the first place.

Seems Mr Draghi disagrees with you about printing money and without being rude I think he has somewhat more say than either of us (which of course may not be a good thing).

It also seems that Germany, now facing a credit downgrade, may force Greece out. As it is they have said that no further installment of the loans will be payed to Greece until September when Greece has a bond renewal due in August.

[rvg]

It also seems that Germany, now facing a credit downgrade, may force Greece out.

Long overdue.

[Fragony]

Forget Greece, now it's Spain. And as the Spanish government surprisingly put it, Germany should give them money and shouldn't forget, guess what

[InsaneApache]

To put their towels on the sunbeds before anyone else does.

[Fragony]

To put their towels on the sunbeds before anyone else does.

Well that as well, although they tend do dig their own holes. Your metaphor is better then you think

On a more serious note, godwins from South Europeans and Eurocrats are starting to really annoy me, there are only so many left before the Germans will stop nodding out of politeness and will just give the finger instead. That plumb eastblock workhorse and ex stasi-informer Merkel isn't going to be forever in charge to appease the international-socialism, they (the Germans) have seriously had it being bullied and morally blackmailed by these garlic-slackers. Same goes for us, the europhiles have little popular support to go on, we already said no to all of this.

[Sarmatian]

Well that as well, although they tend do dig their own holes. Your metaphor is better then you think

On a more serious note, godwins from South Europeans and Eurocrats are starting to really annoy me, there are only so many left before the Germans will stop nodding out of politeness and will just give the finger instead. That plumb eastblock workhorse and ex stasi-informer Merkel isn't going to be forever in charge to appease the international-socialism, they (the Germans) have seriously had it being bullied and morally blackmailed by these garlic-slackers. Same goes for us, the europhiles have little popular support to go on, we already said no to all of this.

You assume Germany does it out of altruism or some euro dream, but the fact is that a lot of debt of those countries are in fact to German banks. If they default, German banks lose a lot of money. Then those banks need to be helped out or they'll go bust.

So, Germany writes off some debt, give additional credits and aid and in the end comes in good shape. In the other case, Germany does nothing and watch Spanish and Greek deficits suddenly become German deficits.

[HopAlongBunny]

So, Germany writes off some debt, give additional credits and aid and in the end comes in good shape. In the other case, Germany does nothing and watch Spanish and Greek deficits suddenly become German deficits.

Excellent summation. The spending spree was clearly not sustainable; even Germany does not have the money to keep the balloon fully inflated. The political question is how much deflation and austerity can be imposed w/o someone opting for default? Of course, how much is Germany willing to bet on the answer.

[Fragony]

For teh Dutchies http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2668/...nd-is-op.dhtml

Ohohoh, the totalitarian true face of the EUSSR, what a flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell of it's tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman, really want from us... To abolish democracy. Es muss sein. Sorry, did we just elected a flemish ferret who looks like an owl that just fell out of his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman? I don't think we did

The terrifying real face of the international-socialism, we must simply obbey because everything the EU does is good because it's the EU doing it

[Kralizec]

The terrifying real face of the international-socialism, we must simply obbey because everything the EU does is good because it's the EU doing it

Yeah, it's time to confront the judeo-bolshewik, cultural-marxist enemy that is the EUSSR!

Do you even read the articles you link to? It's largely about negotiations in the Council, that is the national leaders. Rutte frustrates these kind of negotiations with the valid, but too often repeated excuse that his parliament isn't happy about it and that he can't be arsed to defend the measures.

If every national leader simply refused to accept any sort of compromise that doesn't satisfiy his own goals 100%, nothing would ever get done. That's exactly what you want, but only because you dislike the EU and want to sabotage it any way possible. Bottom line is that the EU doesn't exist exclusively for the benefit of the Netherlands. When you're part of a club you're expected to abide by its rules and mores. I really don't see how it is even remotely "undemocratic", never mind "socialist" when other countries criticize us for selfishly pursuing our own interests without any regard for others.

[InsaneApache]

Bottom line is that the EU doesn't exist exclusively for the benefit of the Netherlands. When you're part of a club you're expected to abide by its rules and mores

That has to be the most accidentally ironic and hilarious post I've read all year.

[Kralizec]

Do explain, please. Or are you just here to take cheap shots?

[InsaneApache]

Well the notion of abiding by the rules and mores of the club is risible considering how the eurozone members have adhered to the stability pact.

Shouldn't need explaining really.

[Kralizec]

Noted.

And?

[SoFarSoGood]

They have broken every 'rule' they have made up. A country has to be democratic to join the EU... Italy does not have 1 elected cabinet member due to Brussels. If the EU were a country applying to join the 'club' it's application would be refused as it is not democratic.

[Fragony]

Yeah, it's time to confront the judeo-bolshewik, cultural-marxist enemy that is the EUSSR!

Do you even read the articles you link to? It's largely about negotiations in the Council, that is the national leaders. Rutte frustrates these kind of negotiations with the valid, but too often repeated excuse that his parliament isn't happy about it and that he can't be arsed to defend the measures.

If every national leader simply refused to accept any sort of compromise that doesn't satisfiy his own goals 100%, nothing would ever get done. That's exactly what you want, but only because you dislike the EU and want to sabotage it any way possible. Bottom line is that the EU doesn't exist exclusively for the benefit of the Netherlands. When you're part of a club you're expected to abide by its rules and mores. I really don't see how it is even remotely "undemocratic", never mind "socialist" when other countries criticize us for selfishly pursuing our own interests without any regard for others.

You call it being an arse, but the international-socialism has no democratic mandate. More and more is it showing it's true face. If promising heaven doesn't work it's it's nature to threaten with hell

[Tellos Athenaios]

For teh Dutchies http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2668/...nd-is-op.dhtml

Ohohoh, the totalitarian true face of the EUSSR, what a flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell of it's tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman, really want from us... To abolish democracy. Es muss sein. Sorry, did we just elected a flemish ferret who looks like an owl that just fell out of his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman? I don't think we did

The terrifying real face of the international-socialism, we must simply obbey because everything the EU does is good because it's the EU doing it

In other words: Rutte and his crew are incompetent, water is wet and the pope remains Catholic.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You call it being an arse, but the international-socialism has no democratic mandate. More and more is it showing it's true face. If promising heaven doesn't work it's it's nature to threaten with hell

You are reacting as though you suffer from some sort of attack of hysteria. Some hack chats up a couple of foreign diplomats (who are not remotely interested in dancing to your tune) gets them to admit they cannot work with a spineless jellyfish for a PM (obviously) and will in future prefer to route around the damage (easy, but not good for the prospects of jellyfish country). All true and none of that is a threat but the consequence of sheer incompetence on the part of our current crop of muppets and of course the fact that other countries do not have to pay more than a token amount of respect for the Netherlands in face of such utter uselessness.

To the other EU states Rutte and co might as well be a dead ferret next to an owl dropped from its tree.

[Fragony]

You are reacting as though you suffer from some sort of attack of hysteria. Some hack chats up a couple of foreign diplomats (who are not remotely interested in dancing to your tune) gets them to admit they cannot work with a spineless jellyfish for a PM (obviously) and will in future prefer to route around the damage (easy, but not good for the prospects of jellyfish country). All true and none of that is a threat but the consequence of sheer incompetence on the part of our current crop of muppets and of course the fact that other countries do not have to pay more than a token amount of respect for the Netherlands in face of such utter uselessness.

To the other EU states Rutte and co might as well be a dead ferret next to an owl dropped from its tree.

Hysteria, we don't even can control our own immigration-policies anymore because of the international-socialism, that costs us 8 billion euro's year and those are just the new ones. In the meantime we have to send accept-gyros to every garlic-slacker in the universe and surroundings, and let's not even start about fatting the multiple NGO's. There are much better ways to spend that money. I have absolutely had it. About to be wanting to get even with those who sell us out. Ripping of jaw, making soup with it. Come to think of it, I will

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hysteria, we don't even can control our own immigration-policies anymore because of the international-socialism, that costs us 8 billion euro's year and those are just the new ones. In the meantime we have to send accept-gyros to every garlic-slacker in the universe and surroundings, and let's not even start about fatting the multiple NGO's. There are much better ways to spend that money. I have absolutely had it. About to be wanting to get even with those who sell us out. Ripping of jaw, making soup with it. Come to think of it, I will

Yeah I get it. However that doesn't make the frustrations of EU diplomats a direct threat but a consequence of sheer uselessness on the part of Rutte and his crew.

[Fragony]

Yeah I get it. However that doesn't make the frustrations of EU diplomats a direct threat but a consequence of sheer uselessness on the part of Rutte and his crew.

You are D66 you would further it much faster, the deeper we are in the harder it will be to get out, D66 will always want more Europe just because it's more Europe. But the deeper we get in this the tighter the noose on our neck will be. If we transfer too much money south there will be no way back, the international socialism will have reached it's true form if we can no longer call it quits because of international financial ties. The Netherlands is a well runned company that really doesn't need so much dead weight, and we especially shouldn't volunteer for having any

[Beskar]

I always wondered why an international corporate cartel having a stranglehold upon the democratic economies of the west is getting portrayed as "Communism" or "International Socialism" (which ideologically opposes such corporate cartels), especially as this cartel is forcing greater integration of the European Union at an accelerated rate due to the economic stresses exerted upon the sovereign debt of nations and the associated flawed policy of where pandering to the cartel apparently means more benefit for the common man of the European Community.

The "Great Economical Game" is at a stage where they cannot lose, the current system of capital investment is at the point where if they make a good debt investment, they gain profit and if they do not, they get bailed out. These rules need to change. The FX market - which sells and buys currency speculations is actually larger annually then global GDP. So if the most profitable way to make money is buy investing on specualtions, which do not even need to materialize. This is unfortunately has also given rise to a disturbing trend whereby an investor does not think that investing into production does not yield enough profit and invests in specualtions only, diverting the money away from the actual real-market. Something is definetely wrong with the system.

So can be done to solve this issue?

Contrary to popular belief of misguided individuals,one of the best ways to tackle this issue is infact: "More Socialism". By this phrase, I am talking about the transfer of power from the economical power brokers to the people of the European community. Opposed to pandering to the international corporate cartel, we should let them know there is such thing as a "bust". Instead of bailing out the banks, you bail out the people. According to figures I posted earlier in this thread, Britain so far has given more money in internal bailouts to the banking sector than the total sum of public debt. In short: We have given more money to the banks than what it would have cost to erase the debt of everyone living in the British Isles. Opposed to giving the money to the banks through allowing them to profiteer on Sovereign credit, the money should go to the people, who then the banks have to appeal to via legitimate market forces to pry from their hands.

[Fragony]

We don't need more socialism we need more decency, socialism is in the end ourscourcing that

[SoFarSoGood]

I always wondered why an international corporate cartel having a stranglehold upon the democratic economies of the west is getting portrayed as "Communism" or "International Socialism" (which ideologically opposes such corporate cartels), especially as this cartel is forcing greater integration of the European Union at an accelerated rate due to the economic stresses exerted upon the sovereign debt of nations and the associated flawed policy of where pandering to the cartel apparently means more benefit for the common man of the European Community.

The "Great Economical Game" is at a stage where they cannot lose, the current system of capital investment is at the point where if they make a good debt investment, they gain profit and if they do not, they get bailed out. These rules need to change. The FX market - which sells and buys currency speculations is actually larger annually then global GDP. So if the most profitable way to make money is buy investing on specualtions, which do not even need to materialize. This is unfortunately has also given rise to a disturbing trend whereby an investor does not think that investing into production does not yield enough profit and invests in specualtions only, diverting the money away from the actual real-market. Something is definetely wrong with the system.

So can be done to solve this issue?

Contrary to popular belief of misguided individuals,one of the best ways to tackle this issue is infact: "More Socialism". By this phrase, I am talking about the transfer of power from the economical power brokers to the people of the European community. Opposed to pandering to the international corporate cartel, we should let them know there is such thing as a "bust". Instead of bailing out the banks, you bail out the people. According to figures I posted earlier in this thread, Britain so far has given more money in internal bailouts to the banking sector than the total sum of public debt. In short: We have given more money to the banks than what it would have cost to erase the debt of everyone living in the British Isles. Opposed to giving the money to the banks through allowing them to profiteer on Sovereign credit, the money should go to the people, who then the banks have to appeal to via legitimate market forces to pry from their hands.

Hold on... we have forced immigration, rights for every minority but never for the natives, enforced working hours, only 15% of the fish that can be caught in British water can be caught by British people, force everyone to overpay for their food to keep French fields empty, impose such regulations on our businesses that are said to cost British business $15bn per year, stop known terrorists from being deported, continue forcing through more and more directives although some 70% of British people want a vote on Europe (you would have to be 59 now to have had a vote on Europe in England) and your answer is.... more socialism?

What the hell do you call a bailout but and enforced tax on one part of the population to pay for another part? You must be living in one of them alternate universes...

[Beskar]

Hold on... we have forced immigration

That is false. There is no 'forced' immigration. There is some policy surrounding the nature of European citizens, but that in no way shape or form reflects policy of citizens from outside the European Community and the United Kingdom has opt-outs to the Schengen Agreement. Immigration is a sovereign government issue.

rights for every minority but never for the natives

That is false. There is no 'extra' rights for every minority and 'never' for the natives. Considering the very nature of citizenship, any British Citizen will enjoy far more 'rights' than any non-British citizen.

enforced working hours

There is only a limit on working hours an employer can force you, which is to benefit of the British citizen to prevent abuse and exploitation of the workers. Even though, this is a mostly sovereign nation matter and British government regulated on this anyway since before the EU even existed. Unless you want this regulation removed which means your employer could up your hours to 60 per week, if you liked it or not, without any legal support at your end, opposed to the current situation where they can not do this and you can choose to do this voluntary.

only 15% of the fish that can be caught in British water can be caught by British people

That is again, false. Only regulation is that Britain can only fish 200 miles off its shore, which was enacted by the UN, and not EU. Even though, there are serious issues of overfishing within the waters which brought about enforced quotas to prevent lifestock going extinct in the Common Fisheries Policy.

force everyone to overpay for their food to keep French fields empty

I don't believe you know how the Common Agricultural policy works. For a start, Britain enjoys half the amount of subsidies as France for the sole reason that France has the biggest agricultural sector in Europe. Also, the "fields empty" is that farmers all over must keep 7% of their land fallow to allow wildlife to thrive otherwise many species of animals will go extinct as they have no where to live. As for "overpay for their food to keep fields empty", this is completely false, hence the "European Food Mountains and Lakes" where we produce so much food in excess, it simply goes to waste. Also, France and Germanies argriculture are both net Contributors (ie: they give to the system more than they take out, even though they take out the biggest shares), the United Kingdom is not.

impose such regulations on our businesses that are said to cost British business $15bn per year

There is always regulation and it always "costs money". It costs more money to depose of waste chemicals safely than just dumping it in the local water supply. Even then, due to the uniformity brought about in the regulation across the countries, it actually costs "far less" than the system where there wasn't policy harmonisation.

continue forcing through more and more directives although some 70% of British people want a vote on Europe (you would have to be 59 now to have had a vote on Europe in England)

I believe that is the British government and not the European Union, even then, we have always voted by-proxy with the government in power. This is the nature of representative governance.

What the hell do you call a bailout but and enforced tax on one part of the population to pay for another part? You must be living in one of them alternate universes...

The bailouts that occurred were systematic free-credit transference to corporate financial cartels on the sovereign states tab. By definition it is not a tax since there was no levy imposed upon the population, even so, I have not disputed this fact in anyway about it not being a form of wealth transference and only suggested that such 'bailouts' should be directed to the population opposed to any corporate interest if they were to occur. So any talk about alternative universes must be a result of critical comprehension failure.

your answer is.... more socialism?

You actually do know what you wrote has nothing to do with socialism outside this mentioning, right?

Especially considering the context I explicitly defined my statement.

[SoFarSoGood]

That is false. There is no 'forced' immigration. There is some policy surrounding the nature of European citizens, but that in no way shape or form reflects policy of citizens from outside the European Community and the United Kingdom has opt-outs to the Schengen Agreement. Immigration is a sovereign government issue.

Ok so what do you call it when we cannot deport known terrorists and cannot stop anyone from inside the EU entering? To do so is a breach of 'European Law' which takes precedence over any national law. Yet the majority of the British people want less immigration... not forced? Get real...

That is false. There is no 'extra' rights for every minority and 'never' for the natives. Considering the very nature of citizenship, any British Citizen will enjoy far more 'rights' than any non-British citizen.

More wishful thinking.... It's fine for Muslims in Britain to shout about 'hating the west' and call for it's overthrow... They have to be 'protected'. If you get a white person shouting the converse (all Moslems are horrid and should be expelled etc) they get prosecuted. Jacqueline Woodhouse got 21 weeks in jail for an expletive-laden rant about immigration, multiculturalism and the disappearance of British civilization. In the same way if two lots of young boys get into a fight and the whites happen to outnumber the coloured people they are likely to found themselves charged with a racialy motivated attack. Should the coloured kids outnumber the white ones, and even if it IS racialy motivated the law will treat it differently. Only natives can be 'racist' in law. What happened to one law for all?

There is only a limit on working hours an employer can force you, which is to benefit of the British citizen to prevent abuse and exploitation of the workers. Even though, this is a mostly sovereign nation matter and British government regulated on this anyway since before the EU even existed. Unless you want this regulation removed which means your employer could up your hours to 60 per week, if you liked it or not, without any legal support at your end, opposed to the current situation where they can not do this and you can choose to do this voluntary.

Ever heard of the European Working Hours Directive? It's a directive mind; ie dreamt up by some unelected bureaucrat. Then there is all the 'unfair dismissal' procedure that you may have to go through if you have to lay someone off because it's not economically viable to keep them on. This makes companies less inclined to hire people in the first place and increases unemployment. The problem is that such mindless 'do-good' socialist dogma is actually a restriction on the very people it seeks to empower. Far from increasing social mobility it actually hinders it.

That is again, false. Only regulation is that Britain can only fish 200 miles off its shore, which was enacted by the UN, and not EU. Even though, there are serious issues of overfishing within the waters which brought about enforced quotas to prevent lifestock going extinct in the Common Fisheries Policy.

So tell me why Spanish boats can take upto 50% of the fish in British waters? You speak about maintaining the fish stocks and if this were the case presumably a moratorium would be imposed to allow all fish stocks to rebuild. However far from this the insanity is that small fish (although already dead) have to be thrown away! As if this is going to replenish fish stocks... Those who the God wish to destroy they first send mad.

In reality Britain lost control over its fish stocks and this insane system is now in place where other European countries can take more fish out of British waters than we can ourselves.

I don't believe you know how the Common Agricultural policy works. For a start, Britain enjoys half the amount of subsidies as France for the sole reason that France has the biggest agricultural sector in Europe. Also, the "fields empty" is that farmers all over must keep 7% of their land fallow to allow wildlife to thrive otherwise many species of animals will go extinct as they have no where to live. As for "overpay for their food to keep fields empty", this is completely false, hence the "European Food Mountains and Lakes" where we produce so much food in excess, it simply goes to waste. Also, France and Germanies argriculture are both net Contributors (ie: they give to the system more than they take out, even though they take out the biggest shares), the United Kingdom is not.

So let me get this right... The Common Agricultural Policy (€43.8bn in 2010) doesn't benefit France although 'France has the biggest agricultural sector in Europe'? Look we pay extra for our food through the taxes we give for CAP and then we restrict imports of cheaper food. So much for the free market but once again the people who really suffer are the poorer people in Europe who because Europe is anti free trade in (and many other areas) have to pay more for their food and pay more in tax. Yet you seem to support this...

There is always regulation and it always "costs money". It costs more money to depose of waste chemicals safely than just dumping it in the local water supply. Even then, due to the uniformity brought about in the regulation across the countries, it actually costs "far less" than the system where there wasn't policy harmonisation.

Disposing of chemicals and regulation for the safety of such issues does not require 'harmonisation' nor some supranational authority to oversee it. It's all about how much room a chicken must have to live in and how big an apple can be what constitutes a 'sausage' or whether something is 'wine' and not alcoholic fruit juice and hundreds of thousands of more trifling idiocies that add no real value but create an extra cost. These additional costs make our business's less competitive and so decrease employment potential.

I believe that is the British government and not the European Union, even then, we have always voted by-proxy with the government in power. This is the nature of representative governance.

Indeed... many of our politicians are 'traitors' by definition. But you must agree that European Union is anti democratic. Not one member of the Italian Cabinet is elected. What happens if you vote no to an EU Treaty? You keep on voting until you vote yes and then you can never vote again. What happened to the Constitution? Simply got turned into the Lisbon Treaty after people voted no. Of course the greatest threat to democracy is this fiscal union... As Gladstone said in 1891: "The Finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the Country...if the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the grants of public money, depend upon it your liberty will be worth very little…”

The bailouts that occurred were systematic free-credit transference to corporate financial cartels on the sovereign states tab. By definition it is not a tax since there was no levy imposed upon the population, even so, I have not disputed this fact in anyway about it not being a form of wealth transference and only suggested that such 'bailouts' should be directed to the population opposed to any corporate interest if they were to occur. So any talk about alternative universes must be a result of critical comprehension failure.

But 'fiscal union' implies unlimited capital transference. You say it's put on a 'tab' but if the the transferals are to be continuous someone has to pay the 'tab'. Also should the debtor prove unable to repay the loan again the 'tab' has to be payed. 'Tabs' don't run forever and in the end it is the taxpayers who pick it either way, either in the debtor or creditor state. But they had this planned from the start... it's what they call a 'beneficial crisis' by which they can say "omg panic!!! We need more powers to deal with this... fiscal union is the only answer!" and thus destroy national democracy.

You actually do know what you wrote has nothing to do with socialism outside this mentioning, right?

If these autocrats - eurocrats were such radically business wise types as you imply why are they crippling European business and free trade in every way imaginable? Why is there is insistence on the 'social agenda' everything done to undermine competitive business in Europe? Let me take one example; the proposed 'transaction tax' (also known as the Tobin tax). This proposes that any deal done on the financial markets will be subject to a small tax. Evidently the City of London would raise the most tax from this but in reality it would just cost more to trade in Europe than elsewhere and the jobs would go... Less investments would be made in Europe and we'd all suffer.

Your brand of socialism, and that of the EU, is that of the Trade Union leader who, believing he is doing best for his members, demands less hours for more pay. This however makes the company decide to close their business in your area and move elsewhere. You have not in fact helped your members... your have put them all out of work.

[Jolt]

Hysteria, we don't even can control our own immigration-policies anymore because of the international-socialism, that costs us 8 billion euro's year and those are just the new ones. In the meantime we have to send accept-gyros to every garlic-slacker in the universe and surroundings, and let's not even start about fatting the multiple NGO's. There are much better ways to spend that money. I have absolutely had it. About to be wanting to get even with those who sell us out. Ripping of jaw, making soup with it. Come to think of it, I will

Your posts and rants on international socialism sound a lot like Breivik.

They have broken every 'rule' they have made up. A country has to be democratic to join the EU... Italy does not have 1 elected cabinet member due to Brussels. If the EU were a country applying to join the 'club' it's application would be refused as it is not democratic.

That's why it isn't a country, and it has never made any claims of being a country. It is an International Organization, like the WTO and IMF, and once you sign in, not only are you forced to follow its rules, but you're also forced to dish out payments to them. It is a regional bloc, started and built on the cooperation between European political leaders. In fact, the EU, when compared with any other international organization or regional bloc, it is far more democratic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your posts and rants on international socialism sound a lot like Breivik.



That's why it isn't a country, and it has never made any claims of being a country. It is an International Organization, like the WTO and IMF, and once you sign in, not only are you forced to follow its rules, but you're also forced to dish out payments to them. It is a regional bloc, started and built on the cooperation between European political leaders. In fact, the EU, when compared with any other international organization or regional bloc, it is far more democratic.

that's very faint praise, "oh well we're better than the other Blocs", which presumably means the African Union and Arab League, and the American Bloc whatever that's called.

I would love to have something positive to say about the EU, but I honestly can't think of a single thing.

[Jolt]

I would love to have something positive to say about the EU, but I honestly can't think of a single thing.

Such delightfully predictable bigotry. But so this commentary doesn't pass on outright, I'll refer you one major thing: Schengen Agreement (And by inherence, if you like, the European Internal Market, which is far larger and more valuable than anything the Commonwealth could ever hope to offer the UK in the next 50 or more years). And I could pull dozens more examples of positive measures from the EU.

Subsidies and legislation emanating from Brussels has helped countries, companies and families in a myriad different ways throughout it's existance. Even the simple concept of the EU using the pooled resources of its members-states as a mean to fund certain areas makes it so in a scale that no single European country could fund the same thing.