Seems there is a storm brewing in the Eu at the moment and good on Cameron for standing firm, however, could someone who actually knows tell me of what benefit we have of being in the EU, is it just trade deals etc?
There was a great quote on Sky News this morning, we dont want to be part of a United States of Germany with a French poodle at their feet! :Laugh
P.s This is a genuine question of our reasons for entering the Eu.
As with so many things, it started out with the best of intentions but was corrupted by bureaucracy and greed and a lack of decent auditing.
The EU started out as a European Economic Community, basically a trade agreement that gave member states advantages when trading with each other. No import duty, less restriction, that sort of thing. Not a bad idea really, reduces the cost of importing and exporting, promotes trade, nice little earner and keeps people within the community on your side diplomatically.
The European Union was an extension of that principle but created further institution such as the European Parliament, European Court, European Commission and hundreds of other organisations within it. Some do good things, others tend to get mired in bureaucracy and try and dictate the shape of bananas. Unfortunately the good work is not what makes headlines and the bad stuff becomes fodder for the media. Especially when the budget for the EU is 120 billion euros a year.
The Euro, the single currency is essentially a method of further promoting free trade between member states. If you buy and sell stuff between two countries using the Euro, you don\'t incur costs associated with changing money. However it means that all those countries within the zone have to be in economically good shape, low national debt, effective deficit management, that sort of thing. Accordingly when the Euro was being set up , the countries wishing to join it had to meet criteria regarding aspects of their economy to join. At the time I think the UK felt it couldn\'t meet the criteria without impinging on it\'s plans at the time so it didn\'t join. However a lot of countries got quite creative with their accounting and borrowed heavily to meet the criteria. However, and this is the bit that gets me annoyed, finance is based on trust, people lend money on the basis that they trust that you can pay it back. Obviously you can convince them that it\'s a good idea and if you\'re entirely honest about your ability to pay it back then it\'s fine. If you\'re a bit "creative" then you bring the system into question and if the dishonesty is sufficient then the whole shooting match comes crashing down in a big nasty mess.
For instance, if you want a mortgage to buy a house you go to a bank and ask them for the money, they look at how much money you\'ve got and the amount you earn and then lend you an amount on the basis that on the balance of things you\'ll be able to pay the loan back with the appropriate amount of interest and if you can\'t then they can sell the house and get the money back.
When was economy is healthy it was easy to borrow money and people borrowed money to lend more money to more people and while it worked everyone was happy. However, someone clever but unimaginative looked at the financial situation of lots of people who had borrowed lots of money from lots of banks and said "Hang on, you\'ve lent all this money to all these people who may struggle to pay all this back. We\'re not going to lend you any more money and we\'d like the money we lent you back now please!" Notice the word "may" no one was struggling to pay money back, they were just borrowing more money to do it, but whilst people trusted that they could pay back the money they were borrowing then it was fine. The idea that they couldn\'t pay it back had not been considered by those lending the money until this point and that\'s where the whole system went to hell. Everybody demanded their money back until someone went "We just can\'t do it." that created a big hole and all of a sudden the whole thing came crashing down and all that was left was the collateral for the loans, mostly houses, however because no one was lending any money no one could afford to buy the houses and their value dropped. This happened on a global scale and places that relied on borrowing money to run their public sector couldn\'t do it, Greece for instance. Obviously if you\'ve been borrowing lots of money to run your public sector then you owe lots of money to lots of people and being unable to pay that creates a huge problems. If you\'re using the same currency as a lot of other countries then you\'re not only bringing your own economy into to trouble, it\'s all the other countries that use the same currency into trouble because no one thinks it\'s any use. This creates loads of problems, most of which you can see in Greece, a lot of which are self-inflicted, a lax attitude to tax collection, enormous public sector and unfunded government debt have meant they\'re in trouble, however them being a member of the Euro means that they\'ve created problems across the whole Eurozone. Countries like Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal are in similar trouble but they\'re working better at getting out of trouble than Greece, which just went on strike.
The thing that really grinds my gears on this issue is that if someone had taken a look at this initially and been a bit more realistic in terms of who they lent the money to in the first place that none of this would have happened. Also, if we hadn\'t become reliant on shovelling money around the financial markets for the basis of our economy then we wouldn\'t be in such trouble anyway! Notice that the countries that aren\'t in trouble at the moment are the ones where their percentage GDP based on manufacturing is higher. Basically what they make some of their money from has an intrinsic value and regardless of world economic situation, someone is always going to pay some money for something. The other good thing about making stuff or digging it out of the ground is that it employs lots of people, they all pay tax and all of a sudden your economy is healthy and you\'re not having to borrow loads of money to support your public services.
I read that and realised that I really didn\'t answer your question well. However the Sky quote about the United States of Germany with a French poodle at your feet, is reference to the fact that all the countries in the Euro-zone are basically trading on the strength of the French and German economies.
Unfortunately, like Communism, the European Union was a good idea in principle but, like communism was mired by the inherent flaws in the human animal, insofar as we want to be more successful than those around us because on a basic hunter gatherer level when we lived in caves and hunted massive hairy elephants, being the most successful was how you got laid more often and therefore had more children and perpetuated your genes.
Somehow I\'ve managed to condense complex economic theory into the desire to get more girls to play with your ding dong. I\'ve probably missed something somewhere but there you go! :D
Quote from: Will66;801968I read that and realised that I really didn\'t answer your question well. However the Sky quote about the United States of Germany with a French poodle at your feet, is reference to the fact that all the countries in the Euro-zone are basically trading on the strength of the French and German economies.
Unfortunately, like Communism, the European Union was a good idea in principle but, like communism was mired by the inherent flaws in the human animal, insofar as we want to be more successful than those around us because on a basic hunter gatherer level when we lived in caves and hunted massive hairy elephants, being the most successful was how you got laid more often and therefore had more children and perpetuated your genes.
Somehow I\'ve managed to condense complex economic theory into the desire to get more girls to play with your ding dong. I\'ve probably missed something somewhere but there you go! :D
I think the comment was more based on the German economy with the French being their b*tch and going along with everything Germany says and wants in the vein hope they get thrown the scraps (i.e benefit from cosying up to ze germans)!
However, thanks for the info Will, it sort of makes sense now!
There is no benefit to being In the eu. We just get taxed more so politicians can toss it off at our expense. ;)
will66 bet your glad your browser didnt just crash after typing all that out!
Will66 = Mac User, browser rarely crashes! Although I did copy it prior to hitting post.
Will, you are far to clever for your own good...
I\'m glad Cameron is telling the eurozone to back off, if we hadn\'t told them to back off before, we would most likely be in the same place as Greece is now. So why should we have to join a currency which has proved that it doesn\'t work, now, at its lowest point. Surely, if we did agree to what the germans and french want us to do, they would just bleed our currency dry to prop up the failing Euro countries?
I am up to speed on his recent veto. He hasnt vetoed the Euro or being part of it, he has vetoed the bail out package and more so the sanctions ze Germans are trying to put on financial sectors and seeing as that is now our biggest industry he stood firm to them as it may put that at risk!
So, we are now on the "outside" of Europe, some say its a good thing, some say its a bad thing.
Concerns for me now are, we wont be part of the main table when decisions are made, but i presume still paying into the pot?
Will - I get what your saying about a single currency and costs involved with transferring money, but we never had the Euro so still have those costs??
I have seen documentaries where economists warned a single currency would not work, it was ignored and now we are seeing the result that it isnt working? So what is the future of the Euro, they are already giving odds for who will leave the Euro first! And apparently ze Germans are already printing Deutchmarks!
Quote from: jetpilot;802059So, we are now on the "outside" of Europe, some say its a good thing, some say its a bad thing.
I\'d be happy to effectively end the political ties to the EU if we can maintain the trade aspects.
We do not need the European Parliament and the many job-for-life bureaucrats that are entirely unaccountable and unelected. I used to think that the UKIP view of dropping the EU would be detrimental to our economy but trade will survive and possibly strengthen.
Have a look at some of Nigel Farage\'s lambasting of the unelected EU people on YouTube... it\'s bombastic politicking at it\'s finest!
Quote from: jetpilot;802059Will - I get what your saying about a single currency and costs involved with transferring money, but we never had the Euro so still have those costs??
Yep and I reckon that we shouldn\'t be bailing out the Eurozone because they couldn\'t keep an eye on what each other was doing effectively.
Interesting today that the report is out on the collapse of RBS, the board were obviously blamed, the FSA also take some responsibility and the Labour governments, "light touch with regards to its approach to regulation".
What REALLY annoys me about the whole situation is that everyone involved and reporting it all uses so much jargon, people that aren\'t directly involved/clued up on it just have no idea what\'s going on. In fact I think that\'s why the majority of people are so annoyed at it all.
You have to ask why Dozy Dave used his veto right at the start of negotiations - why couldn\'t he hang around and use the veto when everything came out in the wash and he knew what was actually on the table? Now we have no part in the discussions at all.
He\'s just pandering to the neo-fascist jingoism from the idiot right-wingers in his party calling for a referendum that he knows will blow both the coalition and his party apart. It has nothing to do with a sensible approach to getting the best out of Europe for the UK - how can we get anything out of it if we\'re not at the negotiating table? The man is an idiot.
And don\'t even get me started on Clegg, who obviously hates the fact the veto has been used but is far too spineless and desperate to cling on to the power he perceives the lying Liberals to have (seriously, does anyone still believe they have ANY influence?). If he had any principles at all he would pull his party out of the coalition immediately and we\'d have a chance of getting the asset-stripping xenophobic Tory scum out.
Quote from: lockwood77;802756It has nothing to do with a sensible approach to getting the best out of Europe for the UK - how can we get anything out of it if we\'re not at the negotiating table? The man is an idiot
As far as i can see there is no good to being in Europe, maybe you could let me know what is beneficial...
Perhaps you mean large train contracts going to Siemens instead of a UK firm Bomardier? Very helpful to UK business?
We will still be at the table for the discussions by the way...
Sorry to say you sound like a typical Labourite bashing the Tories without any knowledge of the situation, just spouting your unfounded biased views!
Well I studied the foundations of the EEC/EU as part of my degree, perhaps that gives me a bit of knowledge? How about you?
Biased, yes - isn\'t a political view by definition biased in the sense that you mean it?
You seem to support protectionism from your comment about Bombardier, a policy that has been shown to produce negative results for any country indulging in it over the years. You take that view and your export market goes up in smoke as every other country retaliates. Usually goes hand in hand with xenophobia...
I certainly come from a socialist standpoint, but at the moment I wouldn\'t call myself a Labourite at all as I am completely disillusioned with the lot of them. I want the Tories out, but I\'m afraid at the moment I can\'t offer you a great alternative - all I know is that with them at the helm, things will be worse than they could be (but they would still be bad). Not a terribly optimistic or positive viewpoint, but I can\'t see any chinks of light in politics at the moment.
I\'m not terribly sure we do still have a seat at the EU Treaty table from what I\'ve read and if we do, exactly what influence will we have now that everybody else knows we\'re not part of it?
On balance I really don\'t know what I think about Europe any more, but the fact is we\'re part of it and we should have every involvement with any changes up to the point of a final decision, and then we can choose whether we want to be part of it any more. We just look like children throwing our teddy out of the pram to the rest of the world - you only have to read what all the American commentators said about it, and they\'re hardly the most socialist country in the world - they think it\'s analogous to communism!
Quote from: lockwood77;802806Well I studied the foundations of the EEC/EU as part of my degree, perhaps that gives me a bit of knowledge? How about you?
At the point you didnt know we still have a seat at the table re the discussions im not sure how valid your above statement is.
From my limited understanding and not having studied it, from what i have seen and heard through various experts opinions, the vetoing of the treaty was the correct decision for the country and will be beneficial in the long run.
I am not interested in an "EU" and never have been, a system where by countries could effectively "fake" their status by borrowing huge sums of money is massively flawed because no one actually did proper checks of their accounts! As others have mentioned, unelected beurocrats justifying huge salaries to make decisions is flawed! A single currency, flawed, economists warned of the failures of this and no one took notice and now look at it!
And what does it cost to run the EU, 120 Billion i think i read? Who\'s paying for that, not the countries in massive debt thats for sure!
I am sure in principal the concept works, but as we all know from modifying cars, often something that works on paper couldnt be further from fact in reality!
Bombardier have played very heavily on how hard done by they were in losing the tender for supplying further units of class 377 traction rolling stock to the Thameslink project. They have made great stock in the press about how this means massive redundancies for the workforce at Derby and they are the last British rolling stock manufacturer. They also allege they have missed out due to government procurement obligations that force them to source from other EU companies (in this case Siemens from Germany). There are a few innaccuracies and exagerations in these claims, not to mention downright untruths.
Firstly, they embarked on a tender for contract. They put in a weaker tender than the rival firm, and therefore lost. That\'s how it works. Companies are awarded tender contracts on the strength of how able they are to fulfill the criteria, not on a complacent reliance on having already produced stock for that client in the past, nor, as Bombardier did, offering a loss-leading tender on a parallel contract as a sweetener (the replacement of signalling equipment throughout the South East network).
Secondly, Bombardier are in no way a British, or even UK company. The Derby works is a tiny subsidiary of one of the most massive global concerns in transportation manufacture. Their primary concern is the production of Lear jets, their rail franchises are a small part of their business in comparison. They are also, if any multinational can be considered to originate from anywhere, Canadian. Therefore Siemens have won out as an EU company over a foreign one.
Thirdly, Bombardier had already announced extensive job losses in the Derby works even before the tender was put out by the SRA. The difference in numbers pre and post failing to secure the contract has been about 200, rising from 1200 redundancies to 1400, so they have attempted to hide in the press their already advanced plans for laying off workforce behind the loss of the Thameslink contract.
Fourthly, their trains are wretched, badly designed, shoddily built, poorly executed, outdated, unreliable, power-hostile, inefficient pieces of utter rubbish and the Siemens ones are everything Bombardier stock is not, they are in fact the best metro-intense stock available. They deserve not only to lose the contract but to never be allowed to manufacture rolling stock again. Awful trains, without redemption in any way.
Hope this helps. Just thought some clarity could help the argument there. Don\'t believe everything you read in the press lol.
Oh, and Lockwood\'s bang on, Cameron\'s "veto" (which abstinance is not, by the way; veto means stopping something happening, not excluding yourself from the procedure that then happens anyway as if you never existed)... was nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with him trying to excercise his political muscle in what he saw as an opportunity to prove his machismo. Unfortunately, it\'s blown up right in his face, he looks a complete fool left out of the playground gang, and he has split what little cohesion remained to the Coalition whilst utterly marginalising the UK in Europe. Top day\'s work. Not
Anon
Thanks Ada, a very helpful understanding of the Bombardier situation!
I am firm believer of quality over price and also getting the best deal, i have to be in my trade!
Hence this is probably why we have such a poor manufacturing industry these days!
I dont agree with your comments however on being on the outside of Europe, from the experts i have seen on political shows, they have concurred its a good thing!
Cheers Nik :)
Personally I think that Party Politics should be banned as any meaningful discussion on the running of the nation is mired in political name calling and pointless party based point scoring.
Quote from: jetpilot;802817At the point you didnt know we still have a seat at the table re the discussions im not sure how valid your above statement is.
As I said, when I wrote that I wasn\'t sure we did have a seat at the table and this rather underlines my point: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a3e5eff4-2741-11e1-b7ec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1h1FrBRK3
"Observer status" is hardly a negotiating position now is it?
Quote from: jetpilotFrom my limited understanding and not having studied it, from what i have seen and heard through various experts opinions, the vetoing of the treaty was the correct decision for the country and will be beneficial in the long run.
I can only assume you read the Sun/Mail/Express/possibly the Telegraph/watch Sky News (aka Fox News). I\'m not sure anyone
is an expert on all this, everyone is making predictions but it\'s not exactly something the world has seen too much of before. Only time will tell and it will be a long while before it all pans out.
The Bombardier stuff is interesting, shows you how people spin things politically for their own ends regardless of the truth. Nothing new there!
Quote from: jetpilot;802059I am up to speed on his recent veto. He hasnt vetoed the Euro or being part of it, he has vetoed the bail out package and more so the sanctions ze Germans are trying to put on financial sectors and seeing as that is now our biggest industry he stood firm to them as it may put that at risk!
It is not our biggest industry - although David wants you to think it is (the City now provides HALF of all Tory party funds). What other "big industry" has the British taxpayer shelled out £289bn in "direct upfront financing" to prop up since 2008? Add in the various government loans and underwriting, and taxpayers are on the hook for £1.19tn.
It is merely our most powerful industry, with massive influence over the politicians. And David didn\'t go to war in Brussels for the whole industry, only the investment bankers who nobody trusts to do a good job any more.
In terms of jobs, our faltering manufacturing industry still employs 2m people - the finance sector employs 1m people and in the big banks, 80% of staff work in retail banking.
In terms of tax, from 2002-2008 (during the last boom in the City), the financial sector paid £193bn in corporation tax - around half the £378bn paid by the manufacturing sector.
It\'s a common misconception that the financial sector is our biggest industry nowadays, but it is myth, propegated and perpetuated by politicians for sinister backroom reasons.
The most depressing part is that the Labour Party\'s recent history is one of giving the City whatever they want, so we have no domestic parliamentary alternative. Now David has "protected" the City bankers from European fettling there doesn\'t appear to be anywhere left to add much-needed regulation to the gung-ho traders.
The bankers have won. They run the country now.
Quote from: lockwood77;803257"Observer status" is hardly a negotiating position now is it?
Pointless discussion as you obviously feel your opinion and views are in higher regard as you have done a degree!
I shall watch the news or political documentaries no more!