Org Mobile Site
Thread: Euro Area
Quote Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy View Post - "And yet it will be pension funds that suffer the most."
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
Bovine.
would you care to refute that more thoroughly, please? :)Bovine.
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
creep
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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... 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.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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?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.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
It's unusual, but not unprecedented and certainly not illegal.
I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was undemocratic.It's unusual, but not unprecedented and certainly not illegal.
Originally Posted by Conradus:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
Bovine.
Bovine.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
That was the whole thing about it, they were trying to encourage the tax globally. It was originally called the robinhood tax 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.That was the whole thing about it, they were trying to encourage the tax globally. It was originally called the robinhood tax and the tobin tax came later on from the EU.
European_Union financial transaction tax
from there own mouths it will reduce the derivatives market by 90%
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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.would you care to refute that more thoroughly, please? :)
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.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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.
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.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.Anger is taken out at the wrong people.
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.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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.
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.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.Anger is taken out at the wrong people.
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.
I wonder why taxation is seen as the solution rather than the problem it actually is?
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
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 moneyI wonder why taxation is seen as the solution rather than the problem it actually is?
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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: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.
- 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).
From the website about costs to the public:
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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.the customer-base of hedge funds and investment banks is comprised primarily of high net worth individuals, not ordinary people.
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.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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.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
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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.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.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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.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.
Another solution would be artificially setting the prices, but then that brings about another host of issues and massive complaints.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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.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.
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.
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 
Spreading some more prize winning 'peace' in Athens today:
Spreading some more prize winning 'peace' in Athens today:
New EU poster:
I count more hammers and sickles and Muslim Crescents than Chritian Crosses...
I count more hammers and sickles and Muslim Crescents than Chritian Crosses...
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
New EU poster:
I count more hammers and sickles and Muslim Crescents than Chritian Crosses...
i noticed that this morning.New EU poster:
I count more hammers and sickles and Muslim Crescents than Chritian Crosses...
Where did you find that?
ed west telegraph blog.
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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 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...
And the point still stand: the vast majority of name-calling that surrounds EU discussions comes from eurosceptics.
Originally Posted by :
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.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?
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.
Originally Posted by :
I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was undemocratic.
You missed the "unprecedented", then?I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was undemocratic.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
ed west telegraph blog.
Can't seem to find it. There's a Hannan entry with the same poster, though.ed west telegraph blog.
If it's real (according to him it's in the Commission building, somewhere) then I certainly hope someone will be fired over this.
What's that Shinto thingy doing there?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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.What's that Shinto thingy doing there?
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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/da...t-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.
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.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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 point still stand: the vast majority of name-calling that surrounds EU discussions comes from eurosceptics.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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...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.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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!In his constituency - exactly. Gordon Brown was elected in Kirkcaldy, with less than 30,000 votes total.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
What's that Shinto thingy doing there?
Because there are Shinto Buddhists in Europe?What's that Shinto thingy doing there?
The whole message was that we could all live together happily, there is nothing wrong with that.
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.
Nice Tweet:
Queen_Europe Angela Merkel (not) #Eurosummit in brief: we agreed to put in place the legislative basis for further disagreement.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO