Do you think UK should join the Euro?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Saracen
A variety of reasons, but among them is that I don't like mass centralisation of power. Too many decisions are already taken by national MP's living in the Ivory Tower of Westminster, when they could and should be taken at local level, and I see things only getting worse if we add ANOTHER layer of beaurocracy on top of that, and stick it in Brussels.

Besides which, let them sort out the total farce that the current EU administration is and get THAT working right before they try to grab even more power.

Oh, and add to that the fact that the arrogant <bleeps> that have taken us into the current degree of Federalised Europe have yet to actually bother to ask the British people if they WANTED to go in! This is not a party-political point - both major parties have conspired in this. MP's are supposed to represent the wishes of their constituents, not decide (in their arrogance) what is best for us and ram it down our throats whether we want it or not.


Do the British people, as a whole, want to be part of a United States of Europe?

I don't know (and as we haven't had a referendum on it, neither does anybody else), but personally I'm of the opinion that the answer is "No". This seems to be supported by most opinion polls (which, I grant, is far from a perfect way to assess the wishes of the people, but in the absence of a referendum, it's the best we've got), but the clincher for me is that we HAVEN'T had a referendum - as I believe if any government in recent years had thought they could get a "Yes" vote on such a referendum, they'd have held one!

Now now Saracen I think it's quite simple. If you want out of Europe vote Tory. If you want in Europe vote LibDem. If you want someone else to decide for you vote Labour.

I dont see why you think that a federal Europe would centralise power. In the US states have control over their laws. Why should Europe be any different? Beside, there are areas (like criminal and business law, environmental policy and civil rights) where it pays to have equality.

[G4Z]

well, I think he has a good point tbh, I just belive that if humans as a whole are every gonna get anywhere (space exploration, nuclear disarmerment, end to world hunger) then we will have to work together and I see europe as a small step towards that, maybe eventually we wont have countries and borders in this world.

That is my idealistic argument, I think there are practical and political barriers but I think we should work towards overcoming these so that in the future the whole world can moan about beauracracy, as lets face it Id rather that was the worst thing in my life rather than moaning about the fact I have no food, no home and no shoes...

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Now now Saracen I think it's quite simple. If you want out of Europe vote Tory. If you want in Europe vote LibDem. If you want someone else to decide for you vote Labour.

I dont see why you think that a federal Europe would centralise power. In the US states have control over their laws. Why should Europe be any different? Beside, there are areas (like criminal and business law, environmental policy and civil rights) where it pays to have equality.

It ain't quite as simple as voting Tory if you want out of Europe though, is it. It seems to me that even the tories can't tell you where the party stands on Europe. For some reason they seem a bit reluctant to talk about it these days. Besides which, the Ken Clark faction is hardly for pulling out of Europe, is it?

Besides, I didn't say I wanted out of Europe. But it does rather depend what you mean by "in Europe". After all, the EEC was supposed to be about trade. Remember the referendum (if you're old enough) - and the political conjuring trick that it was? We were categorically assured that it was a trade association, and that it did mean cheap booze from France and Germany, and that it did not mean a federal Europe, It did not mean common borders or passport, that it did not mean a common currency or our laws being superceded by those from Europe, and a whole host of other things that it did not mean - almost all of which we got. What we didn't get was the cheap booze!

We can cooperate with Europe on issues like environmental law or civil rights without needing to be part of a Federal Europe. It could (if the political will were there) be done by treaty. The same applies to the other issues you mentioned, though I would question whether we necessarily WANT to have complete harmony in all aspects of criminal, let alone civil, law. If we still had complete legal autonomy (which we don't - not by a very large margin), then where it suits us, we can adopt French, German or EU laws, without adopting any we don't want.

As for the example of the United States, well, the circumstances were somewhat different, as were the times. Would you dispute that most of the available evidence, such as it is, suggests that the majority of the British people do not want to be part of a United States of Europe? Because that is certainly the way it seems to me.

If so, is it not rather arrogant (quel surprise!) of Blair to insist that, for example, adopting a European constitution is a good thing and that the people don't deserve to get a vote on that?

Aren't Governments supposed to to be elected to represent the wishes of the people? Yet the Government (as opposed to the Labour party), are adamant that we should not be allowed to choose if we want a European constitution. They come up with all sorts of reasons - cost, logistics, the lack of a referendum tradition in the UK, and even that the proposed constitution will make little real difference, yet personally I'm convinced (and I personally know some Labour MP's that agree with me, and would support a referendum on this) that Blair won't hold a referendum on the constitution for ONE reason - he knows he'd lose!

It's also rather misleading to suggest (as has often been suggested) that your can express you views on Europe by your choice of political party at a General Election. GE's are about a wide range of issues and usually are more concerned with domestic issues that hit people in their working lives or wallets RIGHT NOW, rather than the rather more abstract issues of what a constitution MIGHT be doing to our lives on the future. GE's aren't usually single issue affairs. I might, for instance, agree with Labour on the bulk of their domestic policies but disagree on Europe. Or, I might have totally lost faith in the tories to be able to manage a booze-up in a distillery, let alone a nation, and vote Labour as a protest vote, or the best choice from a bad range of alternatives.

Yet the future of this country as an independent nation, or a region of a European superstate, is sufficiently significant, in my carefully considered view, that the government damn well ought to be making sure it is the will of the people before foisting it on us whether wewant it or not - just like they did with the membership of the Common Market!

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I dont see why you think that a federal Europe would centralise power. In the US states have control over their laws. Why should Europe be any different?

I refer you to the current state of the EU power structure. Like I said, let them sort out the current farce before trying to garner more power. Given the pigs ear they've been making of he EU power structure for the last 30 years, what makes you think they WOULDN'T centralise more?

PS. I admit to a bit of an inside track here - a member of my family is a Euro MP ( ), but even so, there've been enough documentaries on the way the Commission and the European Parliament work to make it painfully clear the system is badly, perhaps terminally, flawed.

[spikegifted]

The political side of joining the Euro is certain a substantial problem. While I am for joining the Eurozone as and when economic circumstances permit, there are lots of issues that need to be addressed and understood by the general public before jumping in.

I agree that the EU originally started out as the EEC and in the past 25 years, the custom union/free trade zone idea has expanded to other areas of political concerns. One of the best ways (by not the only way) of promoting free trade is through a common currency, hence the birth of the Euro. However, as I’ve mentioned in this and other threads regarding the Euro, upon joining the Eurozone, monetary policy will be shifted to the hands of ECB. While this will have big impact on individual country’s ability to direct its national economy, there are still fiscal policies which can be used as a maneuvering mechanism (despite the ‘restriction’ imposed upon the governments by the ‘Stability & Growth Pact’).

However, the next stage of being an ‘ever closer union’ will mean fiscal union as well. If a country gives up its ability to determine its fiscal policy, it will also mean it’ll lose its ability make decisions on nearly every policy area - social, health, employment, investment, education, transport, defense, etc - because all these areas require financing from a fiscal policy. The implication is the ‘lost of sovereignty’. Is that something we want? I’m not sure if this can be sold to any British or, for that matter, every German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, etc!

For me, the most important hurdle is the removal of the European Commission and all the apparatuses that are attached to it. The reason is that the Commission is now this huge bureaucratic machine, with too little efficiency, accountability and transparency. The fact that the Commission is appointed not elected makes me cringe. Somehow, the ‘supreme body’ of the EU needs to be elected, at least by the MEPs, if not directly by the people.

- Accountability has to be addressed: The bug has to stop somewhere and we need to know where it stop quickly so that the people responsible for areas of specialty can be called to account for their actions as soon as problems are found.
- Efficiency has to be improved: Decisions take too long to be implemented; feed backs take too long to return - a recipe for disasters.
- Transparency has to improve: I’d suggest an independent audit which overlooks the whole working of the Commission. Committees of MEPs should be empowered to make judgments on the Commission departments, much like the UK’s Parliamentary Selection Committee on whatever.

Additionally, member states need to the ability/flexibility to pursue their own policies on local taxation, investment, etc, just like the Cantons in Switzerland or States in the US.

These are but a small selection of issues I like to see addressed before I’m comfortable with the idea of a ‘United States of Europe’. These are also very fundamental to the way how the EU works currently and it may not be ever fixed or changed to the extent that I myself and others feel comfortable with.

[Saracen]

You've covered many of the areas, in detail, that I was referring to in general, there, spikegifted.

One tiny clarification, though. In recent years, it has been admitted (by Ted Heath among others) that DESPITE what we were told about joining the EEC at the time, it always WAS about a United Europe. They just LIED to us about that at the time. So it isn't so much that we got an EEC, which then matured through some kind of natural process into the EU, and then into a Federal Superstate. It is more that the Grand Design that was in place before the UK even joining the EEC is now approaching it's culmination - a United European state - which was actually the intention from Day 1.

This is one reason why if a politician tells me the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, if I wanted to watch the dawn, I'd spend a fair bit of time checking the North, South and West - just in case!!

[Galant]

No thanks, not considering the beligerency of the French (and to an extent the Germans) shown many times over recent years. We want those guys having a say in how our country spends and how the country works? I think not.

[Blub2k]

Allowing the Germans more of a role in running Britain would not necessarily be a bad thing. The US did quite a job post WW2 in turning it into a model social democracy, unfortunately they are presently working on unravelling all of that again. UK could learn a lot from the EU about human rights etc if they were not so bothered with maintaining this old "Empire" idea. ( The British Empire was always a nasty beast and should be buried)

[Nox]

i would prefer to join the $ than the euro... and thats a big NO anyway! maybe the euro should join the pound though, i would consider giving them that option

Nox

[G4Z]

Nox I applaud your well thought out comment and I am totaly convinced by your logical researched point...

[Enverex]

I think we should for the simple reason, it will make our extortionate prices stand out more as it will be in a currency that is more easily recognised, and also used by countries so you can more easily compare prices to see just how much you are being ripped off.

NS