If that is your view, so be it. You are welcome to express it but it is an extreme view and not at all "beyond question". The truth is that whether it is in the EU or outside the EU, or inside or outside the Eurozone, a country which spends more than it earns and incurs debts it cannot pay will be in difficulties. That fundamental fact of life is not caused by the EU, no matter how many times you assert that it is.
What it has to do with this discussion is the he has been rolled out by the pro loby in support of the UK staying in the EU. I am pointing out that the history of George Soros is that he acts in the interests of George Soros and is therefore not impartial. I think there is little to choose between 'betting against the UK' and 'shorting Sterling' in reality.
The whole monetary philosophy of the EU is based upon spending money it doesn't have in order to support the Euro, and that is a fundamental characteristic of the EU. A country inside the Eurozone is limited in its range of responses to financial difficulties by a one size fits all interest rate.
It's a fundamental characteristic of every country on the planet to spend money it doesn't have in order to keep its currency afloat. Even if I accept your premise with regard to the EU, how does it differ from any of its member states?
Good debate, long on opinion and short on facts (with the major exception of Pete's posts which I find edifying - especially the monetary ones). Britain has never really got behind the EU - it's been a reluctant member, like joining a club and then sitting in the corner whinging about what goes on there. But then the country has never embraced Europe and Europeans in any case. It doesn't want to speak anyone else's language, thinking that everyone should speak English. Well, you won't find out much about their culture then. It clings to an absurd view that the Americans are our great mates. Whilst it is true that they dug us out of a hole in two world wars, for which we should be grateful (and are), they only did it reluctantly once they had become personally involved. It wasn't exactly altruism. The fact is, there isn't a great deal that the UK has that the US wants, so it doesn't have to listen to us and consequently doesn't seem to much. We on the other hand have to take their every feeling into consideration. Whatever. When the population has been fully informed or educated about the EU, how it works, the pluses and minuses, then sure, have a referendum if you like. Why not? But to date the population is woefully ill-informed, understands little or nothing apart from an idea that it is all about slightly curved bananas. There is no point beefing about the Franco-German cosy relationship when you have made little attempt to join in. My guess is that the Germans would probably sooner have a cosy relationship with the UK, with whom they have more in common, than with France, if only the Brits wanted to play ball. If we don't have much influence in Europe, it's because we've never really "got with the programme." My view is that Britain is a lot better off in the EU than being an increasingly insular irrelevancy, unable to fart without a US say so. In any case, the US have their own problems. How much notice do you think China is going to take of the UK? It may take a little more notice of a strong Europe. It's funny that Cameron seems to want to renegotiate stuff. He is meant to be representing the country and the country doesn't even know what needs renegotiating, so how does he have a mandate? I think debate about the EU is positive - the UK is a democracy after all. But a bit more information in the debate wouldn't do any harm.
The European Union is a great idea but its ruined by the politicians that run it. When the German people decide they no longer want to underwrite the debt of the rest of Europe, then its finished anyway.
the basic premis of free movement of goods and services was an excellent idea, maybe someday it will go back to this, unfortunately there is a huge (influential and powerful) gravy train rolling along on the current setup
YouGov polling report: "At the start of the month YouGov was showing people would vote to leave the EU in a referendum by 46% to 31% who would vote to stay in – figures that were pretty typical of YouGov’s polling on EU referendums for the last year. Last week those figures had shifted to 42% get out to 36% stay in. This week they have moved even further and now 40% of people say they would vote to stay in compared to 34% who say they would vote to leave."
The thing that puzzles me is why euro skeptics are so desperate to "leave" the EU. Where the issue is identified (or misidentified) as "loss of sovereignty to Brussels", it's almost as if the skeptics believe that there is better government to be found elsewhere. I mean, have they even seen the state of the principle political parties in Britain? I wouldn't trust any of the three main parties to look after my pet dog for a weekend, let alone the country. Let the Germans run things, it's what they're good at ... /run away
Don't believe anything 'they' tell you.............. [h=1]Britain would quit the EU now in shock poll reaction to Cameron's big Europe speech[/h] 40% back exit compared to 37 per cent who want to stay in European Union Populus poll result suggests 53-47 vote in favour of exit PM promised to claw back powers before staging referendum in 2017 Nick Clegg says he is 'none the wise' about how it would work in practice PUBLISHED: 14:06, 25 January 2013 | UPDATED: 14:12, 25 January 2013 Britain would quit the European Union if a referendum was held now, a surprise new poll revealed today. In the wake of David Cameron’s high profile speech on giving voters a say on severing ties with Brussels, research showed 40 per cent of people now back an exit while 37 per cent want to stay in. The Populus survey would translate to a 53-47 vote in favour of leaving after other factors, such as likelihood to vote, were taken into account. Britain would quit the EU now in shock poll reaction to Cameron's big Europe speech | Mail Online It ain't going to happen, no matter what we are told...... AL
If the politicians governing Britain are so crap, and I agree, why do you think those running the EU would be any better ?? The further away from me (and you ) the decisions are taken the less they will be in my (our) interest. The interests of the UK would be diluted / diminished / sacrificed to the greater good of some mythical european. Whatever happened to the principle of subsidiarity ?
I am not saying that the EU has better politicians, I'm just suggesting that they aren't all that different to the UK varieties. Plus ça change, and all that. As for your argument concerning solidarity, I already have people lording it over me who are far removed in terms of cultural background and physical distance. I live on the South Coast, you lot are all Northerners to me :biggrin:
Good grief, I think someone has sabotaged my keyboard. Or my brain. Pretend I typed subsidiarity, that's what I meant. The fact is, if you start to break collections of people down along racial/cultural/regional/philosophical/whatever lines, you'll eventually end up with groups of two people - one of whom doesn't belong in the group. :wink: Constituencies end up being arbitrary divisions, from parishes, boroughs, cities, counties, countries all the way up to hemispheres of the planet.
