'Should the UK join the Euro?' poll discussion

EnglishBrainIrishHeart

If the UK thinks it can function long term on the world scene and stay out of the Euro, then we are barking. The recent financial crisis has shown that the world's financiers are willing to back the pound when it appears strong, but any sign of weakness leaves us open to their whims.

Ergo, joining the Euro should/would bring stability and an better playing field for whatever exports and industry we have left in this country.

If the gov can negotiate a ratio of €1.25 -€1.40: 1 (pref closer to 1.4), then from a consumer/tourist point of view would represent good value, problem is that this would make our exports less competative!! The super catch 22

Join the Euro, yes, if the Deutschmark is dead (a much stronger currency in its day than ours) then we have to get with Europe and move with the times.

Listen to the Sun, no - I remember the 80's and 90's, the Tories are why we have no home industry, however, New Labour have not helped. It is a dangerous person who votes in accordance with an Australian-American megalomaniac point of view, when in reality who is in power matters not as long as he can exert an element of control over them!! And no I am not a paid up memeber of New Labour, or any other socialist party, nor am I a Liberal Democrat/Green/not sure what I want to achieve voter!

What we need is a Gov that will stand up for us in Europe - France, Italy and Germany have done very well out of the EC simply by not bending wholesale to the pressures of EC legislation, why on earth can our self-serving, self pocketing politicians not help us become an industrialised nation again, not simply a financial service provider to those that can pick us up and drop us as they see fit.

Patjan

Can't you all see the plot?

ONE common union of nation States
ONE common currency
ONE common "Government"
ONE common foreign policy
ONE common President
ONE common judicial system
ONE common agricultural policy
ONE common fisheries polciy
ONE common immigration policy
ONE common armed services
Etc., etc.

And you're not alarmed????

[Deleted User]

Patjan wrote: »

Can't you all see the plot?

ONE common union of nation States
ONE common currency
ONE common "Government"
ONE common foreign policy
ONE common President
ONE common judicial system
ONE common agricultural policy
ONE common fisheries polciy
ONE common immigration policy
ONE common armed services
Etc., etc.

And you're not alarmed????

Not really.

Much as there are undoubtedly issues with the way the EU works, we've seen a glimpse of the alternatives without an EU fairly recently - the G20.

The reality of global politics is that decisions get made between Governments without much, if any, recourse to national Parliaments and their electorates. That, sadly, is a fact of life for many of us in the West: we live in "representative" democracies, and as such, we elect Parliaments from which are formed Governments that have an awful lot of power to do as they see fit until we get the chance to boot them out.

The EU, for all its faults (and there are plenty), does actually have something resembling a democratic component - weak as it may be - which gives us at least some say in the shape of those international agreements.

The same cannot be said of the G20, the UN, NATO, the WTO and the rest of the organizations to which our country is signed up and which can make intergovernmental decisions that affect us.

As such, while I'd be the first to say that the EU could do with improvement, I'd suggest that there are worse ways than the EU of making decisions at an intergovernmental level.

Following that, as an internationalist I have no particular problem with the general aim of closer union with other states. I don't always think the EU goes about it in the right way, and I think it's doing it faster and in more areas than many of its citizens are particularly comfortable with, particularly in the UK.

But the general principle of (alliance, confederation, call it what you will) between sovereign states, I am fairly sanguine about. I'd prefer it if decisions made at a European level were more democratic, but I also recognise that if we started directly electing people to positions that might bring them into conflict with Member State Governments, we risk accelerating federation, which is precisely the opposite of what many people want.

So we're consigned to this kind of half-way house with which neither federalists nor anti-federalists are particularly comfortable, where Member State Governments have an awful lot of power at a European level and the democratic voice of European citizens is somewhat weaker than people in either of those camps would like it to be (a fair amount of which is a function of the democratic deficit in our own Member States).

But the goal itself - as an aspirational target - I don't really have a problem with.

Secondly, as far as your list goes, some of these things are, IMO, multinational problems that require multinational solutions. That's not to say that I think the EU should claim to itself the right to make all policy decisions in those areas, or that it should go beyond what is necessary to set minimum standards, or set a level playing field.

Thirdly, on the term "common" - it does not necessarily mean "completely harmonized, one-size-fits-all" in all cases.

Obviously that's true of a common currency - we should either have the Pound or we should have the Euro, as any kind of half-way house solution would cause a lot of confusion and be an absolute pain for retailers.

But it's not true in the case of a common foreign policy or a common defence policy. Those only apply in situations where the leaders of Member States can agree on a united policy. It's not "common" as in "single", but rather "common" as in "in areas where we all have something in common".

Where they don't, individual Member States are free to pursue their own foreign policy (where it doesn't violate all the international agreements we've signed, of course).

So if, for instance, EU leaders were united in imposing sanctions on Iran, then that would be a common foreign policy (for as long as that lasted). Intervention in Afghanistan, however, would not be, as there is not a consensus in that regard (save among NATO members who are obliged to do so because of the USA's invocation of Article 5 after 9/11).

And some of the items you raise are somewhat open to interpretation.

The "common President", for instance, is just a chairman of the European Council and not the kind of Presidential office that they have in the United States. It's not even the kind they have in Germany, and I'd bet few here could say without Googling it who the German President even is. And I'd note that the European Parliament has had a President for donkey's years and no-one has batted an eyelid.

Same goes for "common armed services". A common defence policy, even a common defence, doesn't mean we're going to have a new "EU army" that swears allegiance to the twelve stars on a blue field instead of the Union Flag or the Tricoleur. Such a common army, if it didn't include the British and the French, would be either doomed to failure or completely useless - and there's no way the British or the French are about to surrender their sovereignty in that particular area. Co-operation yes; common initiatives yes; common policies (where there's agreement), why not; merging regiments and forever altering the chain of command, absolutely not.

jnm21

Sceptic001 wrote: »

For me the key issue is not how many euros I get when I go on holiday, but who sets the UK's monetary policy, the Bank of England or the European Central Bank. It is difficult enough to set a single suitable interest rate for the UK. To require the UK to adopt the same rate as the eurozone would be to surrender a key economic tool to an organisation (the European Central Bank) which, by definition, is unable to act in the sole interest of the UK economy.

I agree totally & would go further: control of the economy = control of the country! Keep control of both (even if the current 'lot' aren't doing a great job)! How can someone/something trying to set an interest rate to suit varied economies ever do anything better than suit a middle ground minority of those economies?

Pssst

I'd rather convert to $USD than euros.

bigheadxx

The pound is to the European federalists what the Welsh language is to Welsh Nationalistss. They cant see past it.

How can one interest rate for the whole of Europe make sense when it doesnt even make sense for the North Of England to have the same interest rate as the South?

Do we forget the last recession where interest rates in the UK were hiked to stop the south east econoy overheating when the benefits were only just being felt in the north?

The exchange rate will rise and fall, it always has and it always will. Our economoy can only be strengthened by rising to these challenges.

Its a definite NO from me, no matter how many times I am asked.

bigheadxx

The Bank of Englands remit, when it was free to set interest rates, was to maintain CPI at below 2%.

EnglishBrainIrishHeart

jnm21 wrote: »

I agree totally & would go further: control of the economy = control of the country! Keep control of both (even if the current 'lot' aren't doing a great job)! How can someone/something trying to set an interest rate to suit varied economies ever do anything better than suit a middle ground minority of those economies?

The setting of interest rates is not the be all and end all the the state of our economy. Setting of rates does not seem to have had the effect on the economy that the BofE would have liked in the latest crisis, although from a mortgage PoV it has helped some. However, inerest rates have been lower in the Eurozone for much of the last 7 years, much to the benefit of the many Brits over inflatign the housing market of other member nations - and What control do we really have over our own economy now? We have no industry, and what is left is owned by other countries (including our own utilities!!). So Government and Big Business has already surrendered our financial independance to others - hence why the £ is so weak.

MrTomato

It is quite a silly idea to join the Euro. Firstly, for the majority of people it will only be of benefit when they go to Europe, which again, for a lot of people, is only once a year.

To suggest changing currency to have a few extra euros when you go on holiday is stupid.

We would lose out on controlling our own interest rates, so while we may be in a boom, France could be in a depression, and we will miss out on higher interest rates (miss out if you're a saver) and so on.

Imports wouldn't be much cheaper, and it's not like sterling is going to be this bad forever and ever and ever, it will improve. Major companies tend to be massive anyway, and benefit from economics of scale regardless, and tend to keep prices similar for most of the time.

London is a major centre of financial trade, and banks their trade in sterling, dollars, yen and euros. If the UK were to adopt the euro, there would be more incentive for them to move out to a cheaper european contry as long as they had the staff to do so, and would be disastrous for the UK. The 1 hour time benefit they have in London would probably be a decent trade off if it meant saving millions in rent or mortgages every year. Investment would be less appealing for companies looking towards the EU.


And it keeps us individual and away from a super state.

M_Thomson

EnglishBrainIrishHeart wrote: »

If the UK thinks it can function long term on the world scene and stay out of the Euro, then we are barking. The recent financial crisis has shown that the world's financiers are willing to back the pound when it appears strong, but any sign of weakness leaves us open to their whims.

Ergo, joining the Euro should/would bring stability and an better playing field for whatever exports and industry we have left in this country.

If the gov can negotiate a ratio of €1.25 -€1.40: 1 (pref closer to 1.4), then from a consumer/tourist point of view would represent good value, problem is that this would make our exports less competative!! The super catch 22

Join the Euro, yes, if the Deutschmark is dead (a much stronger currency in its day than ours) then we have to get with Europe and move with the times.

Listen to the Sun, no - I remember the 80's and 90's, the Tories are why we have no home industry, however, New Labour have not helped. It is a dangerous person who votes in accordance with an Australian-American megalomaniac point of view, when in reality who is in power matters not as long as he can exert an element of control over them!! And no I am not a paid up memeber of New Labour, or any other socialist party, nor am I a Liberal Democrat/Green/not sure what I want to achieve voter!

What we need is a Gov that will stand up for us in Europe - France, Italy and Germany have done very well out of the EC simply by not bending wholesale to the pressures of EC legislation, why on earth can our self-serving, self pocketing politicians not help us become an industrialised nation again, not simply a financial service provider to those that can pick us up and drop us as they see fit.

What a load of nonsense. Does Australia suffer because it uses its own currency and not the Japanese Yen? Does Canada suffer because it doesn't use the US Dollar? The answer to both questions is no. The UK will get on fine outside the Euro. Although we may be in recession now did our lives collapse when the Euro launched and we were not in it? No. Even if we were outside the EU, the EU would still trade goods with us. I am sick of you lemmings who think that like the borg we should surrender the country to our masters in Brussels.