Whither the euro?

[????]

Carter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "The Greeks for example do not feel, nor protest

> the proposition, that the austerity has been

> imposed by Germany."

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2

> 7,file=39421

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2

> 7,file=39422

>

> And my favourite...

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2

> 7,file=39423

not only do we make things up we even photoshop stuff....er msybe.

You've just talked a load of old twaddle in this thread Hugenot from beginning to end.

Not sure if these photo's have come out but they are viusal proof of your idiotic statement and all you could do was say Very good and ignore them, so, in Black and White Huge do you still standby this statement:

"The Greeks for example do not feel, nor protest

> the proposition, that the austerity has been

> imposed by Germany."

..a simple yes or no?

Lying and making things up. LOL

[Carter]

""Huguenot is right to insist that we must sign up to the Eurozone. Immediately."

You see that's exactly what I mean.

I have not suggested that."

A selection of quotes from this very thread -:

"You can read back five years of my posts on the subject of Europe, the Euro and integration. My line has consistently been that it will have its challenges and drawbacks, but in the final analysis it is necessary and overwhelmingly positive.

Posted by Huguenot November 18, 03:53PM"

"History will more likely look back on this as a blip in the creation of a European super economic zone, and the moment that the British truly disappeared up the arse of their own self destructive vanity."

Huguenot December 09, 11:49AM

And another personal favorite of mine -:

"European integration is a critical objective to fight the UK's position in a world of diminishing resources and energy insecurity."

Posted by Huguenot December 03, 10:51PM

Now, I grant you the words "we must sign up to the Eurozone. Immediately." have not been written, however everything else you write does indicate you suggest that.

[Carter]

@????

I can almost guarantee H's argument here will be one photograph with a swastika and Merkozy does not truly represent the Greek view, but a survey of 0.0007% does represent European views.

The logic part of my brain just exploded all over the screen. Human psychology can be so riddled with weird idiosyncrasies.

[Huguenot]

"Now, I grant you the words "we must sign up to the Eurozone. Immediately." have not been written, however everything else you write does indicate you suggest that."

No, that's your problem Carter, because I didn't say it for a good reason - that I do not think that.

I do think those things that I have actually written - and despite DaveR pretending otherwise, I think you'll find that my views are shared by the majority of the UK's manufacturing and export business community.

Your rubbish about a statistically representative and accurate survey of 32,000 people being less representative of European views than a picture of a moron with a fag lighter is just ridiculous. Not worthy of response.

I'm sure you appreciate that there is no point in discussing this with you when you lie about what I say, claim I have suggested things I have not, and then dismiss all the informed evidence I've produced as somehow less valid than Daily Mail propaganda.

Quids, the Greeks blame corruption, tax evasion, the banks and their ruling elite for their economic problems.

[Carter]

Your ability to ignore facts, distort arguments with strawmen and fallacies, and reside in a delusional and fabricated world is quite simply a wonder to behold.

It's like watching a train crash and out of morbid fascination you cannot take your eyes away, even whilst the pieces of shredded metal are falling all around.

You are Herman van Rumpuy, and I claim my ?5. Or is it ?5?

[Huguenot]

This is just silly - I'm the only one who has tried to actually provide facts and data, and now I'm being accused of promoting fallacies by someone who doesn't even know that there isn't a president of the European Union, and can't tell the difference between the European Union and the Euro.

What a joke.

[Carter]

Ah yes. I'm sorry for missing off a plurality - it should of read "Presidents" - not President.

However -:

Herman van Rumpuy - President of the European Council, unelected by democratic process, but appointed by member of the European Council.

Jose Barroso - President of the European Commission, appointed by the European Council.

Nice cosy club if you can get into it.

Of course, H argues that Cameron is "appointed" by the Conservative Party. Which is, of course, not true. He was elected by members of that Party, which is right and proper. We "elect" parties to run the Government and so, the Party Leader then becomes Prime Minister. However, none of that can be applied to van Rumpuy or Barroso.

*Edit to mention*

And of course, don't forget the general disgust shown when Blair tried to get himself appointed the President of the European Council.

*Edit #2 to mention*

"...and can't tell the difference between the European Union and the Euro."

This coming from someone who can't tell the difference between disliking the EU and disliking Europeans. If one expresses dislike of the EU or the Euro, which almost all people here are, then it is automatically twisted to become "Anti-European" and thus the wholly incorrect charges of "xenophobia" and "racism" can be thrown.

[Huguenot]

Sure, you keep putting them up Carter, and I'll keep setting you straight.

Herman van Rumpuy - President of the European Council (the decision making division of the EU, containing the various Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries etc.) was actually serving as the elected Prime Minister of Belgium when we was elected to the presidential role by his similarly elected counterparts (including Britain).

This is no different to David Cameron, who was serving as the MP for Witney when he was elected to the Prime Minister role by his similarly elected counterparts for other constituencies.

Put simply: our democratic representatives are elected by us, and then appointed to office by their peers. There is no difference between the EU and UK in terms of the 'elected' nature of these roles.

Jose Barrosos is President of the European Commission which is the equivalent of the UK Civil Service - they are instructed by the elected group (the European Council) to exercise European policy.

In the UK the Head of the Civil Service is about to be Sir Bob Kerslake. He was appointed by the Prime Minister. He was not elected.

Hence there is no difference between the EU and UK in terms of the 'appointed' nature of this role.

The European Commission was actually modelled upon the UK Civil Service, and is politically neutral in the execution of policy.

So there you have it - no difference: the EU is as democratic as the UK

[Carter]

Again, H - completely, utterly, wrong, wrong, wrong.

"...they are instructed by the elected group (the European Council) to exercise European policy."

Following the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission now has legislative powers. This was previously held by the Council, which still controls EU Foreign Policy. The UK Civil Service has executive, not legislative powers.

The EU Council and EU Parliament may request the Commission to draft legislation, though the Commission does have the power to refuse to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Executive_power

[Huguenot]

It's the weakness of your understanding of the UK situation that is letting you down.

The European Commission drafts proposals that can be submitted by anyone, but it can't legislate without the agreement of the elected body.

The legislation is proposed by the Commission, in the UK this is the same as drafting a bill for parliament.

In the UK a bill can be drafted by anybody - a private individual, a company, the civil service, whoever. Bills have no requirement to be drafted by elected representatives.

Hence the EU is no less democratic than the UK.

FYI the reason why only the Commission drafts proposals is so they will meet the legal requirements, as just like in the UK, ANYONE can petition to have legislation proposed.

Are you getting the picture yet?

[Huguenot]

You've been stitched up, you've been strung a line - the Eurosceptics, the right wing press, the UKIP pillocks have all been lying to you.

[Carter]

Ah, yes, but the UK Parliament can refuse any drafted bill. Parliament legislates, Civil Service enacts.

The EU Parliament has no such powers. It can suggest or amend, but cannot refuse any drafted bill. The only things the EU Parliament can do is refuse to sign of the EU budget - not happened for, what, 16 years? The Parliament also has the theoretical right to dismiss the Commission if two-thirds of MEP?s vote for this. This would cause huge chaos and simply will not happen. As the driving force behind policy initiative is the Commission, such an act would deprive the European Union, in many senses, of its modus operandi. Stop their own gravy train, as it were.

Therefore, the powers lie with the Commission, and the Commission is nothing like the Civil Service. Since the 27 Commissioners are appointed by the Commission, there is no will of the people. Our current Commissioner is Catherine Ashton, a woman who has never faced any democratic vote whatsoever.

So yes, the EU is a lot less democratic than the UK.

*Edit to add*

Stitched up? Not really - I'm just interested in where 60-odd% percent of my labours, taken from me under threat of gaol, actually goes. As should everyone be.

[Huguenot]

Oh come off it - you've constrcuted a massively convoluted "what if...?" scenario to demonstrate a point that is massively weakened compared with your flouncing around earlier.

Then you come up with another one just to keep us entertained....

60% of your labours? What merry work of fiction is this?

What's that actually going to turn into once we've had a quick look at it eh?

My guess is that you're talking about some kind of tax figure, and by the end of it we're going to discover that it's actually going to be considerably less that 1% of your tax that pays for one of the most effective and productive common markets in the world, delivering over 50% of exports...

Or have you got something else illogical up your sleeve?

[Carter]

But I am not actually wrong, though. Am I?

As for 60-odd%, of course I am talking about tax, and of course I realise that the EU is but a very small allocation of that tax take but that should not detract from the fact that we should all be asking where the money goes.

The fact the EU has not had its own accounts signed off for the 17th consecutive year and it hounds its own anti-fraud unit should raise massive alarm bells.

[Huguenot]

The UK government spends about 640bn a year in total, and the net cost of EU membership (expenditure less direct income from grants or funds) is about 6bn, or about 0.94%

However, not all of government income comes from taxes, only 588bn does, so that's about 0.86%.

If you were earning 100k a year, then in total income tax and NI payments after allowances would be about 35k.

So even if you were earning 100k a year, in fact net only 300 quid of your earnings is paid towards the EU each year - or 0.3%.

That's less than a third of a penny for every pound you earn.

For that you get a common market, freedom of trade, freedom of movement, freedom of domicile, consistency of regulation and a continent wide commercial infrastructure.

You get a market worth over 50% of our total exports.

You get huge leverage on global markets when negotiating access to shrinking resources and energy insecurity.

Despite what certain people will tell you, there's virtually no difference in the democratic accountability of the EU organisations compared with the UK.

So what kind of insane idiot when faced with figures like that would still be campaigning to pull out of Europe?

[Marmora Man]

Time to close this thread - it's like listening to two drunks arguing too late into the night after a boozy Christmas office party - and is getting boring.

There is a healthy debate to be held on the subject but batting tennis ball facts, figures and insults back and forth is not adding to the sum of human knowledge.

[Huguenot]

To the contrary Marmora Man - the essence of this debate is facts, figures and the propensity of the anti-Europe brigade to deliberately misrepresent and misuse them in pursuit of a destructive hidden agenda.

Your own anti-European position is well established, and I reserve the right to ignore instructions from you to shut up as the right wingers continue a campaign of misinformation in the national press and on people's doorsteps.

I have no doubt that clarification of the democratic foundation of Europe and the minor investment if requires to deliver massive economic returns are 'boring' to you - you'd prefer these points were never proven at all.

[DaveR]

H, you have no data to support your position because it is incapable of being supported by data. Your position is:

"One is a group of visionary, inclusive, capable politicians who recognise that the long term security of Europe relies upon the creation of a united region with sound political and economic strategies that can negotiate effectively in a world of shrinking energy reserves and mineral resources.

The other is a group of short-sighted financial carpet baggers, ably supported by narrowminded xenophobes and competitive economic blocs who would try and bring the European economy to its knees. They will attempt to do this in piecemeal fashion, by rolling Greece, rolling Italy, then Spain or Ireland until there is nothing left."

and you have maintained this ridiculous blinkered position throughout. You are the narrow-minded zealot, blinding yourself to reality, to the sheer desperation of those 'visionary' politicians as they fight like rats in a sack to reconcile the irreconcilable. The supreme irony, of course, is that you live in Singapore, where the evidence of the idiocy of your views is in your face at every turn.

Anyhow, when that European superpower emerges from the ruins we'll all be too old to care.

[Huguenot]

"The supreme irony, of course, is that you live in Singapore, where the evidence of the idiocy of your views is in your face at every turn."

Too clever for me mate, do explain? At the moment the rain is in your face wherever you turn - is the Euro responsible for that? Or is the EU? Or do you not differentiate?

The hyperbole of course, is all your own words here ;-)

I notice that Norway's refusal to engage on equal terms with the EU has created high tarriffs that mean there's a butter shortage on.

Evidence perhaps that your claims that there'll be no impact of withdrawal from Europe as misplaced?

[Carter]

Or, again, in the real world....

Norway's new diet craze means a shortage of butter.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/13/norways-latest-diet-craze-butter/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45616920/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/diet-craze-leaves-norwegians-begging-butter/

http://www.dietdoctor.com/black-market-butter-is-becoming-expensive-in-norway

Mind you, if you get your news from a rankly hypocritical rag that criticises hedge funds whilst Guardian Media Group profits from them and practices tax avoidance by using Cayman subsidiaries, then you can't help but have a hugely distorted and narrow-minded view of events.

Sanctimonious champagne socialists - you gotta luv 'em.

[El Pibe]

Regardless of the long running ping-pong argument on this thread on this specific and largely irrelevant sidetrack regards norweigan butter I think the point is, that craze aside, the shortage has come about because of the vagaries of the climate, something the common agricultural policy, for all its problems, was designed to overcome and has done so with enourmous success. Score one for europe then (though it managed to do this happily when it was just a common or garden common market)

Firstly CAP issues ahve nothing to do with the Euro, increased economic integration or, well anything currently being discussed,

Secondly this is a problem of Norway's making though, rigidly maintaining protectionist tarrifs when a crop failure has meant there's nothing left to protect (this year anyway).

[Huguenot]

This is why it's so boring discussing with you Carter - you deliberately miss the point. You end up on some stupid tirade against the messenger instead of trying to understand the message.

Nobody is denying that the demand is up because of a local fad, the problem is what you do when demand is up and you have artifical market restrictions imposed by your trading relations.

Here is the Helsingin Sanomat:

---

"In a wider context, however, Norway?s Customs policy is to blame, for it makes it practically impossible for the shops to replenish their shelves with imported butter.

?It is too late to ask now?, says Danish-Swedish dairy giant Arla?s communications director Theis Br?gger.

Norway is not an EU country, and the import tariff on butter from abroad has been set at 25 Norwegian krone (EUR 3.30) per kg. For this reason dairies from other Nordic Countries do not really export their products into Norway at all.

After the butter shortage hit the country, Norway agreed to lower the import levy to a mere four krone per kilogramme of butter, a move that failed to resolve the problem.

?We have nothing to offer at such short notice. Also, from the business point of view such short-term activities are not really worthwhile. Norway has already communicated that the Customs duties will be raised back to normal on January 1st?, Br?gger says."

---

You see? You get it now?

Being outside of large trading markets renders your economy highly sensitive to mild fluctuations: you don't have the resources or the trading relations to compensate.

Out of the EU (because of spending 0.3% of your paypacket on it)? Look forward to empty shelves.

Why do you think even William Hague says leaving the EU is a stupid idea? It's not me isolated here, it's you.

[Jeremy]

Carter - you are missing the point. The increased demand may be due to dietary habits, but they can't buy it from overseas for political reasons.

But I actually think that the Guardian article is quite balanced - Norway is a prosperous country, economically it looks like staying out of the EU was the right thing for them to do (although I guess it depends on how much you like butter).

[Huguenot]

It's relevant, El Pibe, by illustrating how countries that make compromises to support the common good are favoured when it comes to economic relations and by return, those outside the bloc are less well favoured.

They suffer as a result.

Besides, Carter has already said that in his mind there is no difference between the EU and the Euro.

[Carter]

Ah yes, the CAP.

How devastating for the Norwegians, having to pay slightly higher prices for butter.

But at least they are not suffering increasing poverty and famine. If surplus food is produced due to the CAP then the EU intervenes in the market either by subsidising export of the product at below cost price; by storing it, creating the EU 'food mountains'; selling it later; or destroying it. Such exports are generally dumped on poor countries, especially in Africa.

To me the CAP is one of the most evil things ever to come out of the EU. There is one policy proven to kill our fellow human beings.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSPOL/AG3.htm