UKIP=BNP=EDL=ALL ONE IN THE SAME

[metalblue]

If the europhiles had their way we'd have swapped the pound for the euro long ago and we'd be a damn sight more fucked than we are now.

"UKIP are racist" - this is the only fucking counter argument they've got. Laughable.

Ok, so I believe that while the euro appears to be failing, it does not necessarily mean that monetary only unions will always fail. That doesn't mean to it won't continue to do so by the way.

We must take into account the circumstances of the global economy over the past six years. Mistakes were made, yes, the German debt model couldn't be extrapolated, in the early years over stimulated demand wasn't felt with by contraction, governmental lending was also probably too high (as a consequence excess wasn't dealt with) and austerity was possibly over emphasized recently.

But, that does not mean that monetary unions can't exist successfully. The eu is as much a product of the crisis as we are/were.

It has developed free trade agreements, and is in the process of developing more. It is a fact that the uks income from Europe is much higher than income from the us, aus and brics and over fifty percent of exports go to the eu.

Our indecision on the eu is merely strengthening other countries resolves when it comes to our negotiations. Over time it will become harder to successfully negotiate beneficial terms to joining completely.

I think, now we are a globalised world anyway, that we are going to be more and more dependent on other countries to support our own economy, whether we like it or not.

The cost of our current membership is small and certainly outweighed by benefits, but whether or not we can agree favourable terms may force our hand.

Some would argue that with increased globalisation it makes sense to work with our neighbours, others will argue that we can do so without a union. It boils down to ideological differences, but there is a great deal of misinformation out there.

Me? I think ill sit firmly on the fence.

There, and not a mention of the word "racist"

Morning mate, it's a bit early so I might be misunderstanding you, apologies if so.

The lack of a single economic policy (ergo government) played a crucial role in the sov. devt crisis as well as in the ongoing recession/stagnation. I'm not sure it was an extension of the German model per-se - although certainly it was all on Germany's terms - but a lack of control and a willingness for everybody to treat anybody in the eurozone as Germany. As you rightly point out we are beholdent to the EU for trade, hence our economy faced with eurozone headwinds continues to bob along the bottom, but I don't see being inside or outside the EU will impact on that at all unless Germany and France wanted a trade war which seems unlikely (although they would almost certainly win).

The cost argument against the EU could be resolved by removing dual governance of nations, I just don't see that as politically appealing to any of its citizens.

Interesting point on government borrowing, increased rate fears have failed to manifest, unquenchable desire right now to lend, borrowing for 30 years at ~250bps? Now that should be tempting for Osborne in parallel to sorting the structure...might be less painful. I'm becoming dovish on borrowing, I feel dirty, better hand return my thatcher slippers and bed cover to HQ.

 

[Skashion]

Interesting post but the bit in bold is where your argument fails (in my opinion), because the EU is costing us a fortune and the benefits do not outweigh the cost.

Explain why the CBI think differently.

 

[Blue Til Death]

Politics in this country is in a dark place and has been for a long time, Im totally fucked off with the whole shower

 

[roaminblue]

If the europhiles had their way we'd have swapped the pound for the euro long ago and we'd be a damn sight more fucked than we are now.

"UKIP are racist" - this is the only fucking counter argument they've got. Laughable.

Ok, so I believe that while the euro appears to be failing, it does not necessarily mean that monetary only unions will always fail. That doesn't mean to it won't continue to do so by the way.

We must take into account the circumstances of the global economy over the past six years. Mistakes were made, yes, the German debt model couldn't be extrapolated, in the early years over stimulated demand wasn't felt with by contraction, governmental lending was also probably too high (as a consequence excess wasn't dealt with) and austerity was possibly over emphasized recently.

But, that does not mean that monetary unions can't exist successfully. The eu is as much a product of the crisis as we are/were.

It has developed free trade agreements, and is in the process of developing more. It is a fact that the uks income from Europe is much higher than income from the us, aus and brics and over fifty percent of exports go to the eu.

Our indecision on the eu is merely strengthening other countries resolves when it comes to our negotiations. Over time it will become harder to successfully negotiate beneficial terms to joining completely.

I think, now we are a globalised world anyway, that we are going to be more and more dependent on other countries to support our own economy, whether we like it or not.

The cost of our current membership is small and certainly outweighed by benefits, but whether or not we can agree favourable terms may force our hand.

Some would argue that with increased globalisation it makes sense to work with our neighbours, others will argue that we can do so without a union. It boils down to ideological differences, but there is a great deal of misinformation out there.

Me? I think ill sit firmly on the fence.

There, and not a mention of the word "racist"

Morning mate, it's a bit early so I might be misunderstanding you, apologies if so.

The lack of a single economic policy (ergo government) played a crucial role in the sov. devt crisis as well as in the ongoing recession/stagnation. I'm not sure it was an extension of the German model per-se - although certainly it was all on Germany's terms - but a lack of control and a willingness for everybody to treat anybody in the eurozone as Germany. As you rightly point out we are beholdent to the EU for trade, hence our economy faced with eurozone headwinds continues to bob along the bottom, but I don't see being inside or outside the EU will impact on that at all unless Germany and France wanted a trade war which seems unlikely (although they would almost certainly win).

The cost argument against the EU could be resolved by removing dual governance of nations, I just don't see that as politically appealing to any of its citizens.

Interesting point on government borrowing, increased rate fears have failed to manifest, unquenchable desire right now to lend, borrowing for 30 years at ~250bps? Now that should be tempting for Osborne in parallel to sorting the structure...might be less painful. I'm becoming dovish on borrowing, I feel dirty, better hand return my thatcher slippers and bed cover to HQ.

Morning mate, honw's things?

Sorry, what I meant by German model was that I believe debt in the eu was assumed to be similar to German debt. Badly worded, I know.

I think you are probably right about the impact on trade, it may have no impact at all. I think though, from an "inners" perspective, I think the strongest argument is globalisation. Better off making friends sooner.

Re: political unions, personally I think there are many reasons why it would help the eu. But I also think that the current state isn't because monetary unions definitely don't work, rather that the environment has highligted the problems with its design. Hence why I'm not falling one way or another on this just yet.

Certainly not mu strongest area though.

Borrowing still interests me, but I have concerns still.

For one, can we trust another government to cut the deficit once growth is up? It could be another government, where the allure of GDP figures prove too irresistible. Secondly, I think Osbourne prefers slow growth over larger, government funded ventures.

One economist has expressed fears that Tue unemployment we see how has become structural, that its not due to a gap but has adjusted to the norm. Bad news if so

 

[Ancient Citizen]

it would not be in their interest, we take more from the eec than they import from the UK

There is also the very unpalatable truth that the two countries in Europe outside the EU are also the most prosperous.

I assume you mean Switzerland and Norway?

Some points: Norway and Switzerland, as economies, that are not comparable to the UK. Look at their main sources of income. The uk has neither.

Both contribute extensively to the eu anyway, yet do not have any influence over policies, and still have to abide by policies to trade in the eu.

Now, regards to the eu debate, I cannot profess to be particularly up to date, but I've yet to see definitive evidence that we should definitely not be in the eu.

Finally, no one found my joke funny, it seems. I'm horrified

Norway, in common with the UK, has access to North sea oil. Hydro-electric power timber and fisheries are a main contributor. Switzerland is the fortunate recipient of inward financial investment, sells a few watches and in the main, like us, is a service economy. They have no influence over policies in the EU as they are not members, any country has to abide by certain policies to trade with others and these two nations see no advantage in joining, yet enjoy the most prosperity. Why is that?

 

[Balti]

Politics in this country is in a dark place and has been for a long time, Im totally fucked off with the whole shower

lie to get into power then ignore the wishes of the electorate on major policy issues and often even the false promises that they made to get into power in the first place

no convictions and populist minor tinkering policies that blow about in the wind dependent on the ICM polls

not to mention the false expenses and junkets etc

or the fact that they accomplish very little but get paid fortunes at our expense for what seems to be a glorified and often childish debating society when the real power lies overseas in any case

the two and a half party system is a totally outdated anachronism and a mere pretense of true democracy

the whole thing wants tearing down and rebuilding from scratch

 

[Blue Til Death]

Politics in this country is in a dark place and has been for a long time, Im totally fucked off with the whole shower

lie to get into power then ignore the wishes of the electorate on major policy issues and often even the false promises that they made to get into power in the first place

no convictions and populist minor tinkering policies that blow about in the wind dependent on the ICM polls

not to mention the false expenses and junkets etc

or the fact that they accomplish very little but get paid fortunes at our expense for what seems to be a glorified and often childish debating society when the real power lies overseas in any case

the two and a half party system is a totally outdated anachronism and a mere pretense of true democracy

the whole thing wants tearing down and rebuilding from scratch

And not even the merest inkling of how we all live day to day & how we get by. Being a politician these days is going to the right university and knowing the right people.. Decent folk like Frank Field who are in touch with the real society get nowhere because they threaten to burst the modern political bubble with common sense....A total rebuild is right as you say and only we can make it happen

 

[roaminblue]

There is also the very unpalatable truth that the two countries in Europe outside the EU are also the most prosperous.

I assume you mean Switzerland and Norway?

Some points: Norway and Switzerland, as economies, that are not comparable to the UK. Look at their main sources of income. The uk has neither.

Both contribute extensively to the eu anyway, yet do not have any influence over policies, and still have to abide by policies to trade in the eu.

Now, regards to the eu debate, I cannot profess to be particularly up to date, but I've yet to see definitive evidence that we should definitely not be in the eu.

Finally, no one found my joke funny, it seems. I'm horrified

Norway, in common with the UK, has access to North sea oil. Hydro-electric power timber and fisheries are a main contributor. Switzerland is the fortunate recipient of inward financial investment, sells a few watches and in the main, like us, is a service economy. They have no influence over policies in the EU as they are not members, any country has to abide by certain policies to trade with others and these two nations see no advantage in joining, yet enjoy the most prosperity. Why is that?

Apologies for the late reply, studies got the better of me.

So, what I meant was that Norway and Switzerland aren't great examples due to their GDP levels and respective populations. Plus the "swiss miracle" is nothing new, growth and prosperity have been present there for a long time. so the swiss it would seem are not so much benefiting due to staying out of the eu, rather they were a prosperous country anyway. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong. Swiss GDP per capita looks very impressive, but GDP less so? Also our population growth will have a negative effect on GDP, I'm not sure how much, but it could be noted.

The swiss are also a low trade, high value economy, whereas we are bulk trade. To compare like for like can become convoluted because or the differing demand and supply curves of the different countries.

Not to say there is no merit to your argument. The swiss model does offer more than the Norwegian model.

But, Norway and Sweden still do pay into the eu, yet have no voting rights; and Norway at least pays in a considerable amount.

A Norwegian minister also recently said that being part of the eea is essential for its exports (that are certainly more bulk than Sweden)

Anyway, this isn't particularly a strong point of mine, thought I'd add my tuppence :-)

I will say that if we left completely, it may not all smell of roses. The regulations may still exist, farmers would lose subsidies, imports could crowd out domestic supply.

Maybe you can help me, what would you say some benefits and costs of leaving the eu are? From your perspective.

 

[Mike D]

One economist has expressed fears that Tue unemployment we see how has become structural, that its not due to a gap but has adjusted to the norm. Bad news if so

I tend to agree with the last statement entirely in that I don't see any further reductions unemployment but if anything more unemployment. The reason being is that the government has been successful (a few people may call it that) in changing the dynamics of the workforce, with an economy which is in a depression the only way to create jobs is share them out. So what we are seeing more and more of is the zero hours contractors and more and more part time workers swallowing up what were full time jobs. Now that the job market is begining to level out and we are starting to reach a saturation point where there are just no jobs that can be shared out.

Anyway back to the subject here's one of those typical UKIP faithfull getting a bit hot under the collar with Ed Milliband http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2013/apr/30/edmiliband-gordon-brown

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I assume you mean Switzerland and Norway?

Some points: Norway and Switzerland, as economies, that are not comparable to the UK. Look at their main sources of income. The uk has neither.

Both contribute extensively to the eu anyway, yet do not have any influence over policies, and still have to abide by policies to trade in the eu.

Now, regards to the eu debate, I cannot profess to be particularly up to date, but I've yet to see definitive evidence that we should definitely not be in the eu.

Finally, no one found my joke funny, it seems. I'm horrified

Norway, in common with the UK, has access to North sea oil. Hydro-electric power timber and fisheries are a main contributor. Switzerland is the fortunate recipient of inward financial investment, sells a few watches and in the main, like us, is a service economy. They have no influence over policies in the EU as they are not members, any country has to abide by certain policies to trade with others and these two nations see no advantage in joining, yet enjoy the most prosperity. Why is that?

Apologies for the late reply, studies got the better of me.

So, what I meant was that Norway and Switzerland aren't great examples due to their GDP levels and respective populations. Plus the "swiss miracle" is nothing new, growth and prosperity have been present there for a long time. so the swiss it would seem are not so much benefiting due to staying out of the eu, rather they were a prosperous country anyway. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong. Swiss GDP per capita looks very impressive, but GDP less so? Also our population growth will have a negative effect on GDP, I'm not sure how much, but it could be noted.

The swiss are also a low trade, high value economy, whereas we are bulk trade. To compare like for like can become convoluted because or the differing demand and supply curves of the different countries.

Not to say there is no merit to your argument. The swiss model does offer more than the Norwegian model.

But, Norway and Sweden still do pay into the eu, yet have no voting rights; and Norway at least pays in a considerable amount.

A Norwegian minister also recently said that being part of the eea is essential for its exports (that are certainly more bulk than Sweden)

Anyway, this isn't particularly a strong point of mine, thought I'd add my tuppence :-)

I will say that if we left completely, it may not all smell of roses. The regulations may still exist, farmers would lose subsidies, imports could crowd out domestic supply.

Maybe you can help me, what would you say some benefits and costs of leaving the eu are? From your perspective.

It is true the Swiss were prosperous prior to the EU, Norway at that stage to a lesser degree until North sea oil boosted their economy considerably.
Originally, we voted for inclusion into the 'Common market' which, to all intents and purposes was merely a tool to free up trading bureaucracy between partner nations, I thought it was unecessary then and even more so now.
With hindsight this looks to have been a naive move as the ever encroaching federalist intentions of Germany are clear and the astronomical costs of the Brussels administration, plus the constant interference in domestic policies makes it more and more unpalatable. I don't believe that Europe will put up barriers if we leave, after all, we buy more from them than they do from us, so joining Norway and Switzerland in becoming outsiders and gaining control of our own destinies makes sense to me.
Whether UKIP is the route to take, I doubt, frankly, as it seems to represent the knee jerk mentality of people angered by what they are seeing, without due consideration to the the more mundane necessities of government.