BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…3637394142…2110

Comments

  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    I am aware the above post ambles on without making a coherent argument. Consider it to be me thinking out loud.

    The main point is that Leave aren't completely indulging in wishful thinking when they say the UK can get a good trade deal with the EU or individual member states in the event of Brexit.

    A secondary point is that the southern Euro states could be the modern equivalent of the Dust Bowl states, and we and Germany are the equivalent of California. The effect of another Euro crisis could precipitate an end to freedom of movement of people within the EU, whatever we decide.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,227
    mrfpb wrote:
    One proposed solution is that in return for continued contributions form the UK we get free trade and free movement of labour (people with jobs to go to) as opposed to a blanket free movement of people

    Or we could save ourselves all this angst and have the UK move unilaterally to a contribution based benefits system, similar to most of Europe.

    Added bonus of putting home grown benefits junkies under pressure to get off their lard ar5es and do the jobs these hard working EU migrants do currently.
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    Yes, we could negotiate a trade deal. The UK is a trifle rusty on this as we haven't really done so since the 1970s, when we let the EEC do it for us. A similar issue is immigration or "taking back our borders" as the Brexiteers have it.
    All of this will need a bunch of govt employees to do. The Tories in particular have slashed their numbers in recent years and I can't see an appetite for an increase in numbers.
    So all this negotiation will be done by our political lords and masters with support from a dwindling bunch of people without much experience. Fingers crossed, eh?
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
    Yes, we could negotiate a trade deal. The UK is a trifle rusty on this as we haven't really done so since the 1970s, when we let the EEC do it for us. A similar issue is immigration or "taking back our borders" as the Brexiteers have it.
    All of this will need a bunch of govt employees to do. The Tories in particular have slashed their numbers in recent years and I can't see an appetite for an increase in numbers.
    So all this negotiation will be done by our political lords and masters with support from a dwindling bunch of people without much experience. Fingers crossed, eh?

    Frankly, crap, sorry to lower the tone. Our civil service and governments have done nothing but argue and negotiate with the EU/EC/EEC for the last 50 years - since we first attempted to join in the 60's. I am sure we will continue to do so after Brexit.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,326
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    If the referendum was held today and the terms were that we had reached the limit to our integration, reaching a line in the sand, I would probably vote to stay in. But the fear is, until any terms are published, there will be further moves towards a goal of US of Europe, however many years away, and that is not for me.
    That is 100% the end goal.
    Ask anyone outside of the UK. Do some research.
    A Federal State of Europe is the intention.
    Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves.

    Whether you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing, should decide your vote.
    Been making sensible posts on this thread since 19th May. Just saying.
    This aspect of the debate seems to have been swamped with talk of economy and immigrants.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Can I make a suggestion for a civilised debate. To improve the analogy replace oil rig with London. Let's assume that London is over-populated and public services are at breaking point - we should debate whether citizens from poorer parts of the Uk should be stopped from working and/or living within the M25.

    The problem with using this argument is that you are not comparing like for like.

    Take someone located in a poorer part of the UK who is working in a minimum wage job for a supermarket in the UK. Their wage would be the same whether it was the poorer UK part or London.

    Now compare that to most other EU countries, that supermarket minimum wage job would be at a lower wage. Surely even with this basic example you can see the 'pull' of migration from other EU countries to London or even to poorer parts of the UK.


    Here's a scenario for you to answer:

    Consider the following people, who do you feel more culturally linked to?

    A Greek
    An Australian
    Someone from *Hull (*Purely as an example of a poorer part of the UK outside the M25)
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    PBlakeney wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    If the referendum was held today and the terms were that we had reached the limit to our integration, reaching a line in the sand, I would probably vote to stay in. But the fear is, until any terms are published, there will be further moves towards a goal of US of Europe, however many years away, and that is not for me.
    That is 100% the end goal.
    Ask anyone outside of the UK. Do some research.
    A Federal State of Europe is the intention.
    Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves.

    Whether you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing, should decide your vote.
    Been making sensible posts on this thread since 19th May. Just saying.
    This aspect of the debate seems to have been swamped with talk of economy and immigrants.
    Remain and Leave agree on the following:

    We don't want the Euro
    We don't want Shengen
    We Don't want closer integration or a US of Europe
    We don't want to pay a fair share of the membership fee

    Why are we fighting to stay in. When we go to EU conferences it's as if we joined a cycling club and turn up to every meeting with walking poles and hiking boots.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,326
    mrfpb wrote:
    Why are we fighting to stay in.
    Commerce and money.
    Also, power for those in the game.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    orraloon wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    One proposed solution is that in return for continued contributions form the UK we get free trade and free movement of labour (people with jobs to go to) as opposed to a blanket free movement of people

    Or we could save ourselves all this angst and have the UK move unilaterally to a contribution based benefits system, similar to most of Europe.

    Added bonus of putting home grown benefits junkies under pressure to get off their lard ar5es and do the jobs these hard working EU migrants do currently.

    You would think this is natural Tory territory yet I have heard not one theory on why they haven't gone there.
    Same as introducing a rule to say kids have to be in the UK to get child benefit.

    It was like he deliberately ballsed up the renegotiation by asking for things he knew he would not get but could deliver himself. Unless he is going to announce this solution on the 22nd.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mrfpb wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    If the referendum was held today and the terms were that we had reached the limit to our integration, reaching a line in the sand, I would probably vote to stay in. But the fear is, until any terms are published, there will be further moves towards a goal of US of Europe, however many years away, and that is not for me.
    That is 100% the end goal.
    Ask anyone outside of the UK. Do some research.
    A Federal State of Europe is the intention.
    Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves.

    Whether you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing, should decide your vote.
    Been making sensible posts on this thread since 19th May. Just saying.
    This aspect of the debate seems to have been swamped with talk of economy and immigrants.
    Remain and Leave agree on the following:

    We don't want the Euro
    We don't want Shengen
    We Don't want closer integration or a US of Europe
    We don't want to pay a fair share of the membership fee

    Why are we fighting to stay in. When we go to EU conferences it's as if we joined a cycling club and turn up to every meeting with walking poles and hiking boots.

    It amazes me they don't tell us to do one
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    On the comparisons with the Scottish referendum. One of the reasons some Scot's voted to stay was that the Westminister parties cobbled together a last minute offer (Devo+) to encourage them to stay. This will not be replicated by the EU commission, they feel they they have given us a good offer in Feb.


    Scotland was/is in a progressive state of devolution within the UK, Devo+ just hurried it up. The EU is in large part committed to a progressive centralisation and integration which both the Remain and Leave camps want no part of. We will not get the same sort of swing to the status quo that happened in Scotland (though we probably will get a smaller swing).
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Can I make a suggestion for a civilised debate. To improve the analogy replace oil rig with London. Let's assume that London is over-populated and public services are at breaking point - we should debate whether citizens from poorer parts of the Uk should be stopped from working and/or living within the M25.

    The problem with using this argument is that you are not comparing like for like.

    Take someone located in a poorer part of the UK who is working in a minimum wage job for a supermarket in the UK. Their wage would be the same whether it was the poorer UK part or London.

    Now compare that to most other EU countries, that supermarket minimum wage job would be at a lower wage. Surely even with this basic example you can see the 'pull' of migration from other EU countries to London or even to poorer parts of the UK.


    Here's a scenario for you to answer:

    Consider the following people, who do you feel more culturally linked to?

    A Greek
    An Australian
    Someone from *Hull (*Purely as an example of a poorer part of the UK outside the M25)

    But it is exactly like for like as the person from Hull has the same right to work in London as the Greek. It costs a lot more to live in London than it does Greece so it would not be an obvious decision to come here to work for minimum wage.

    Not sure who I would feel more culturally close to. If they had all moved to London probably the Aussie, then Greek. This is because there is an element of self selection to people who move overseas so they would be more likely to have an international outlook.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mrfpb wrote:
    On the comparisons with the Scottish referendum. One of the reasons some Scot's voted to stay was that the Westminister parties cobbled together a last minute offer (Devo+) to encourage them to stay. This will not be replicated by the EU commission, they feel they they have given us a good offer in Feb.


    Scotland was/is in a progressive state of devolution within the UK, Devo+ just hurried it up. The EU is in large part committed to a progressive centralisation and integration which both the Remain and Leave camps want no part of. We will not get the same sort of swing to the status quo that happened in Scotland (though we probably will get a smaller swing).

    What is your source for "progressive centralisation and integration" - I read somewhere that this had been abandoned but can not remember where I read it
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    mrfpb wrote:
    BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
    Yes, we could negotiate a trade deal. The UK is a trifle rusty on this as we haven't really done so since the 1970s, when we let the EEC do it for us. A similar issue is immigration or "taking back our borders" as the Brexiteers have it.
    All of this will need a bunch of govt employees to do. The Tories in particular have slashed their numbers in recent years and I can't see an appetite for an increase in numbers.
    So all this negotiation will be done by our political lords and masters with support from a dwindling bunch of people without much experience. Fingers crossed, eh?

    Frankly, crap, sorry to lower the tone. Our civil service and governments have done nothing but argue and negotiate with the EU/EC/EEC for the last 50 years - since we first attempted to join in the 60's. I am sure we will continue to do so after Brexit.
    You may have missed my point. I agree, our politicians have always negotiated with our Euro brethren. My point is that the game will change on leaving. I have no faith in Johnson and Gove leading us to the sunlit uplands of Brexit. If you do, that's grand.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    On the comparisons with the Scottish referendum. One of the reasons some Scot's voted to stay was that the Westminister parties cobbled together a last minute offer (Devo+) to encourage them to stay. This will not be replicated by the EU commission, they feel they they have given us a good offer in Feb.


    Scotland was/is in a progressive state of devolution within the UK, Devo+ just hurried it up. The EU is in large part committed to a progressive centralisation and integration which both the Remain and Leave camps want no part of. We will not get the same sort of swing to the status quo that happened in Scotland (though we probably will get a smaller swing).

    What is your source for "progressive centralisation and integration" - I read somewhere that this had been abandoned but can not remember where I read it

    There is an ongoing debate over centralisation within the commission. Some -typified by Junker, want the original European dream to progress to full political union - the US of Europe. others, typified by Tusk, recognise that different mebers, especially UK and some Easternbloc states don't want this. There was a debate recently between Junker and Tusk on this subject. Here is a link to the EU debate, I am not sure if it's the same one reported in the press a month ago:

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/n ... nd-Juncker
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mrfpb wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    On the comparisons with the Scottish referendum. One of the reasons some Scot's voted to stay was that the Westminister parties cobbled together a last minute offer (Devo+) to encourage them to stay. This will not be replicated by the EU commission, they feel they they have given us a good offer in Feb.


    Scotland was/is in a progressive state of devolution within the UK, Devo+ just hurried it up. The EU is in large part committed to a progressive centralisation and integration which both the Remain and Leave camps want no part of. We will not get the same sort of swing to the status quo that happened in Scotland (though we probably will get a smaller swing).

    What is your source for "progressive centralisation and integration" - I read somewhere that this had been abandoned but can not remember where I read it

    There is an ongoing debate over centralisation within the commission. Some -typified by Junker, want the original European dream to progress to full political union - the US of Europe. others, typified by Tusk, recognise that different mebers, especially UK and some Easternbloc states don't want this. There was a debate recently between Junker and Tusk on this subject. Here is a link to the EU debate, I am not sure if it's the same one reported in the press a month ago:

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/n ... nd-Juncker

    Good link

    Yep similar to my thought. Political union used to be a goal in itself now it is only when necessary for closer economic union.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Actually it's the debate in this Reuters report I was thinking of:

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe ... KKCN0XW23N
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mrfpb wrote:
    Actually it's the debate in this Reuters report I was thinking of:

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe ... KKCN0XW23N

    Even better - you will of get lynched for rational presentation of an argument.

    So I read that as the Big 3 are despairing that ever closer political integration is a thing of the past.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    I read it as Junker is despairing and resorting to insulting newer member states who disagree with his European dream. Tusk is acknowledging that member states don't want full integration. The original report I read (in The Times?) isn't coming up on Google, it had more detailed comments form Tusk and Junker. This one from the Telegraph gives more from Tusk:

    “It's a quite common opinion in Brussels that the EU always has problems with its member states and our lives would be much more comfortable without member states," he said.

    “I can understand why this is a dream for some Brussels colleagues, but I think it is time to redefine our dreams for the EU as a project.

    “This means that today we must admit this dream of one European state with one common interest and maybe in the future one common nation was an illusion.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... s-juncker/

    While I'm leaning towards out, it is good to actually get some decent coverage about what EU leaders think and to see that there isn't a single entity called "Brussels" deciding everything.

    It's actually the lack of reporting on this that keeps the debate from maturing. My previous statement that Remain are fighting to stay in a club where they don't want to take part in central activities still stands.
  • cycleclinic
    cycleclinic Posts: 6,865
    The anove is why the brexitiers fears are unfounded. Just as they think the eu cannot be reformed its top brass think now is the time for a rethink of its future role. Brexit voters just fail to read between the lines. The eu will reform itself. If britain is in we can steer it in direcrion that suits us. The current eu single market looks the way it does thanks to britain (industrial pooicy, state aid rules, health and safety policy mostly originate in our cival service). Britain and germany can set the agenda for the future of the eu we have to be in though.
    http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    thecycleclinic wrote:
    The anove is why the brexitiers fears are unfounded. Just as they think the eu cannot be reformed its top brass think now is the time for a rethink of its future role. Brexit voters just fail to read between the lines. The eu will reform itself. If britain is in we can steer it in direcrion that suits us. The current eu single market looks the way it does thanks to britain (industrial pooicy, state aid rules, health and safety policy mostly originate in our cival service). Britain and germany can set the agenda for the future of the eu we have to be in though.

    I have to disagree. While there is some political will to reform, our failure to secure real reform in our renegotiation shows that the old guard still hold sway. We will not get another chance to negotiate in this way from the inside for another generation. The first debate link I posted suggests that most in the EU think our deal is a good one, and if we vote for it that is all the reform that is needed. Most of the countries wanting real reform are minnows - though Poland ought to be a big fish. The UK are the only big fish pushing for reform. Only the shock of the UK leaving will be enough to reform the EU.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mrfpb wrote:
    thecycleclinic wrote:
    The anove is why the brexitiers fears are unfounded. Just as they think the eu cannot be reformed its top brass think now is the time for a rethink of its future role. Brexit voters just fail to read between the lines. The eu will reform itself. If britain is in we can steer it in direcrion that suits us. The current eu single market looks the way it does thanks to britain (industrial pooicy, state aid rules, health and safety policy mostly originate in our cival service). Britain and germany can set the agenda for the future of the eu we have to be in though.

    I have to disagree. While there is some political will to reform, our failure to secure real reform in our renegotiation shows that the old guard still hold sway. We will not get another chance to negotiate in this way from the inside for another generation. The first debate link I posted suggests that most in the EU think our deal is a good one, and if we vote for it that is all the reform that is needed. Most of the countries wanting real reform are minnows - though Poland ought to be a big fish. The UK are the only big fish pushing for reform. Only the shock of the UK leaving will be enough to reform the EU.

    They will just make sure that nobody else wants to follow us. Even if they do reform post Brexit we will never rejoin as we would have lost all of our opt-outs and have to commit to joining the Euro.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    mrfpb wrote:
    thecycleclinic wrote:
    The anove is why the brexitiers fears are unfounded. Just as they think the eu cannot be reformed its top brass think now is the time for a rethink of its future role. Brexit voters just fail to read between the lines. The eu will reform itself. If britain is in we can steer it in direcrion that suits us. The current eu single market looks the way it does thanks to britain (industrial pooicy, state aid rules, health and safety policy mostly originate in our cival service). Britain and germany can set the agenda for the future of the eu we have to be in though.

    I have to disagree. While there is some political will to reform, our failure to secure real reform in our renegotiation shows that the old guard still hold sway. We will not get another chance to negotiate in this way from the inside for another generation. The first debate link I posted suggests that most in the EU think our deal is a good one, and if we vote for it that is all the reform that is needed. Most of the countries wanting real reform are minnows - though Poland ought to be a big fish. The UK are the only big fish pushing for reform. Only the shock of the UK leaving will be enough to reform the EU.

    you might be right, there is certainly amongst member states population a demand for change - but what bothers me is what is the uk going to do once we vote out? we dont make anything anymore and should the eu tempt bmw, peugeot etc back to the mainland and/or the banks start relocating, what then?

    SC, we may have no choice but to rejoin.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    mamba80 wrote:

    you might be right, there is certainly amongst member states population a demand for change - but what bothers me is what is the uk going to do once we vote out? we dont make anything anymore and should the eu tempt bmw, peugeot etc back to the mainland and/or the banks start relocating, what then?

    SC, we may have no choice but to rejoin.

    The European single market is unique in that it applies to goods and services, not just goods. Our main export is financial services from the City of London. I posted a link to a BBC article on the previous page that reported that Dutch and German businesses are already putting pressure to their governments to support free trade in the event of Brexit, (and that British businesses are having conversations with our government to discuss continuing trade) so the views of hardline commissioners aren't the only factors in play.

    The problem is that the UK gov't will be responsible for Brexit negotiations, and there is no way they will state what position they will take before the referendum.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mamba80 wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    thecycleclinic wrote:
    The anove is why the brexitiers fears are unfounded. Just as they think the eu cannot be reformed its top brass think now is the time for a rethink of its future role. Brexit voters just fail to read between the lines. The eu will reform itself. If britain is in we can steer it in direcrion that suits us. The current eu single market looks the way it does thanks to britain (industrial pooicy, state aid rules, health and safety policy mostly originate in our cival service). Britain and germany can set the agenda for the future of the eu we have to be in though.

    I have to disagree. While there is some political will to reform, our failure to secure real reform in our renegotiation shows that the old guard still hold sway. We will not get another chance to negotiate in this way from the inside for another generation. The first debate link I posted suggests that most in the EU think our deal is a good one, and if we vote for it that is all the reform that is needed. Most of the countries wanting real reform are minnows - though Poland ought to be a big fish. The UK are the only big fish pushing for reform. Only the shock of the UK leaving will be enough to reform the EU.

    you might be right, there is certainly amongst member states population a demand for change - but what bothers me is what is the uk going to do once we vote out? we dont make anything anymore and should the eu tempt bmw, peugeot etc back to the mainland and/or the banks start relocating, what then?

    SC, we may have no choice but to rejoin.

    The banks will have to transfer stuff immediately so you could see 100,000 jobs go and a colossal fiscal hit.
    Manufacturing I see as a slow decline as all future investment goes internal to EU.

    You say we have no choice but to rejoin but I just don''t see where the impetus comes from. If we vote out it will have meant that the majority voted with their hearts not their heads. I can't see what would change that.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mrfpb wrote:
    I read it as Junker is despairing and resorting to insulting newer member states who disagree with his European dream. Tusk is acknowledging that member states don't want full integration. The original report I read (in The Times?) isn't coming up on Google, it had more detailed comments form Tusk and Junker. This one from the Telegraph gives more from Tusk:

    “It's a quite common opinion in Brussels that the EU always has problems with its member states and our lives would be much more comfortable without member states," he said.

    “I can understand why this is a dream for some Brussels colleagues, but I think it is time to redefine our dreams for the EU as a project.

    “This means that today we must admit this dream of one European state with one common interest and maybe in the future one common nation was an illusion.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... s-juncker/

    While I'm leaning towards out, it is good to actually get some decent coverage about what EU leaders think and to see that there isn't a single entity called "Brussels" deciding everything.

    It's actually the lack of reporting on this that keeps the debate from maturing. My previous statement that Remain are fighting to stay in a club where they don't want to take part in central activities still stands.

    I only read two things so Times makes sense.

    I don't think either side is trying to swing voters. They probably see it as more profitable to scare their core support into definitely voting.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mrfpb wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:

    you might be right, there is certainly amongst member states population a demand for change - but what bothers me is what is the uk going to do once we vote out? we dont make anything anymore and should the eu tempt bmw, peugeot etc back to the mainland and/or the banks start relocating, what then?

    SC, we may have no choice but to rejoin.

    The European single market is unique in that it applies to goods and services, not just goods. Our main export is financial services from the City of London. I posted a link to a BBC article on the previous page that reported that Dutch and German businesses are already putting pressure to their governments to support free trade in the event of Brexit, (and that British businesses are having conversations with our government to discuss continuing trade) so the views of hardline commissioners aren't the only factors in play.

    The problem is that the UK gov't will be responsible for Brexit negotiations, and there is no way they will state what position they will take before the referendum.

    The BBC link looks like one person's opinion - I would like to see more noise on that story. The first problem I see with it is that any agreement would have to be unanimous and many of the 27 have no skin in the game. Yes they could be bought but it will not be quick. Second problem is how do the Brexiteers sell the idea that we still need to accept immigrants and pay for the privilege? I can not see them getting a vote through parliament as the hard core anti EU brigade will go in with the opposition.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,317
    On the subject of the Euro, wouldn't it be fair to say that if we joined the Euro, the value would increase and be on a par with the US dollar, it would then become an global currency and our exports would be cheaper for our export markets as sterling is prohibitively strong.

    I don't understand the aversion to joining the Euro
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    Mrfpb: Leaving the EU will help them reform. I paraphrase, but really? Leaving the EU will teach them all a lesson? I have heard this before and don't really buy it.
    You're right about Tusk and his comments, though. I think I said way back that we should stay, and get properly involved. This does not mean joining the Euro, which may be a doomed project. But if a Northern EU group got together, I still think the EU project could work. And it would piss the French off.
    I understand Mr Tusk's comments. Poland is right next to Ukraine, where Putin has already interfered. If we leave, and the EU becomes more unstable, Putin will be laughing his socks off. Politics is sometimes a pragmatic game after all.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    Pinno wrote:
    On the subject of the Euro, wouldn't it be fair to say that if we joined the Euro, the value would increase and be on a par with the US dollar, it would then become an global currency and our exports would be cheaper for our export markets as sterling is prohibitively strong.

    I don't understand the aversion to joining the Euro
    Sorry Pinno, posted just after you. I don't necessarily understand the aversion to the Euro either, but I have a gut feeling they would also like a back-up currency to trade occasionally. I would call this extra currency the Deutsch Mark, but that boat might have sailed? :)
    Ecrasez l’infame

Categories