Incidentally, re Hell freezing over; according to Dante's Inferno the Ninth (lowest) Circle of Hell is indeed frozen over, with Satan's lower body fixed in the ice along with the damned sinners. So hell freezing over is a remarkably inaccurate metaphor for unlikelihood - sorry about that. Satan's town is named Dis - I think it must be in Norfolk.
Who cares, it matters not what I/we think cos some daft twat who's never done anything but spout political shite as a career straight from Uni will ultimately make the decision as to whether WE get a decision. It's a shite situation and will never be sorted by roll over voting, I say bring back strikes now race track decibel limits, that's worth voting on as is keeping Motogp free to air.
A Scotsman that even the scots hate, Gordon Brown was the first person im aware of to oppose joining the Euro when labour came to power in 1997....no one remembers that. i wouldnt be surprised to learn that Turkey and Egypt will become part of the EU soon.
You're tempting me to explain, aren't you? OK then. Turkey applied for associate membership in 1959, and formally applied for full membership in 1987. Negotiations have moved slowly over the past 54 years. Of 35 areas, only one chapter is completed, 13 are close to agreement, and 17 are frozen. The Turks hope to accede by 2023, but some member states are implacably opposed so don't hold your breath. Egypt? You're having a laugh!
This for me is the crux. The Euro was introduced knowing it was flawed and would result in a crisis out of which it was hoped greater political and fiscal union would emerge. The EU must make a giant leap forward, in which case I want a say, or it must take a step back, which goes against all it's core beliefs. Promising a referendum in 2017 is an insult from cast iron Dave.
I don't think that is so at all. The Euro was very strong before the financial meltdown. There was talk about oil being priced in Euros at that time. It might have been flawed, but you have to wonder just how heavily Greece weighs in real terms in the Eurozone. The idea that all the Eurozone countries subscribed to it knowing it would fail seems hopelessly naive to me. Just another conspiracy theory, and no more credible than most of them.
Maybe it was the anticipated success of the hard ECU. "Is that a hard ECU in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?"
Just one link BBC News - Jacques Delors: Euro was flawed from beginning There are many more. Note that 'Mr Delors insists that all European countries must share the blame for the debt crisis'; and by implication responsibility. and Commenting on those - like the British - who objected to euro membership by saying the currency could not work without a state, Mr Delors said: "They had a point." I don't think this a conspiracy theory at all, it is widely recognised as conspiracy fact. I did not say that they subscribed knowing that it would fail.
You mean that with hindsight they could see it might fail, or that it was deliberately developed by a cabal of people, with political intent, knowing that it would be likely to fail and duping countries into signing up for it?
What I mean is that the Euro was introduced as stepping stone within an overall strategy of creating a European Superstate. It was known that it was flawed, a one size for all interest rate is unstable, and as a result it would eventually precipitate a crisis for which the solution would be greater political and fiscal integration. Failure of the Euro was never an option and the EU will do whatever it takes to defend it, including beggaring the PIIGS and reducing them to living off handouts for decades. The Euro is part of a means to an end, which is a European Superstate ruled by a self serving elite.
There is no reason for the PIIGS, or any country, to be "beggared" or to need "handouts for decades". Provided they match their expenditure to their income, and only borrow what they can afford to pay back, they will be fine. Just like you and me, and just like every country in the world. That basic principle applies regardless of what currency is used.
Do you think there is any chance of that happening in the foreseeable future ? Just think what that would do to GDP. Unlike you and I governments have the option of printing money and there is the dawning realisation that bond holders will never be repaid.
If you build a football team comprising say, a Beckham and two others of the same skill level, then add a couple of 5 year olds, and some in their 60s and 70s, you cannot possibly expect them to work well as a team. The Euro and the EU is exactly the same........You cannot expect different nations with totally different economies to perform as one. But some t*ts obviously did..............or at least that is what the population was told.........in my opinion it was intended to be the expansion of Europe by the largest / strongest nation within Europe, in order that they totally controlled Europe. In other words a second attempt, but by the back door. AL
So you would not expect an economy comprising Cornwall, London, Inverness, the Isle of Wight, and Leeds to perform as one, then? It seems to be your view that joining different and varied regions together economically and politically does not and cannot work. That's a pity, since every major country in the world consists of precisely that. So tell us then, please, is it your view that all large and varied economies should better be broken up into small, homogeneous units?
For me Pete there is an optimum size for a country in the same way that there is an optimum size for a company. Too small and you lose economies of scale, too big and it becomes unmanageable. The UK is just right and the EU is too big.
Really? So USA, China, Russia, India and Brazil are all far too big, unmanageable and uneconomic, and should be broken up? I wonder there is any shred of a basis for that proposition? Back in the real world, Europe is trying hard to compete globally with USA, China etc as we must, which is difficult because the EU is scarcely large enough.
The five areas you refer to above aren't exactly nations that had their own currency and relevant diverse economy are they, Pete?...... P*ss poor analogy, that one. AL
