UK Economy
-
I do occasionally like to start some bizarre conversation on a Friday, but this week I'm going to go for something a little more serious. This article raises so many questions in my mind and there's probably even more that I'm missing: Economy hits ten-year low[^]. Quote: The 0.4 percent figure was in line with economists' expectations, however, and so will come as a relief to a stock markets that have fallen for the past nine days in a row. Really? Have we honestly got to the stage where a ten-year low is a relief? And yet I've seen little mention of this on the news today, just more talk about Iraq. Quote: Other financial markets were broadly stable with the pound steady against the dollar at $1.632 When did this happen? Last I noticed, it was up to about $1.45. Quote: Europe's largest economy, Germany, for example, grew just 0.2 percent last year. :wtf:? Quote: Without the jubilee effect, statisticians said, the third quarter figure would probably have been similar to that for the fourth quarter. This is my favourite quote. Is this serious? We take one extra day off in June and it increases third quarter growth from 0.4% to 0.9%??? Quote: But despite [base interest] rates being cut to a 39-year low of 4.0 percent the economy has not emerged unscathed from the winds of recession blowing across the globe. The country's manufacturing sector, which exports much of its output, has borne the brunt of the slowdown. I'm not an economist, I get the basics but that's about it; anything I say here is base on perception, not on any deep knowledge of the subject. But I don't feel bad about that because the economists seem to be as confused as I am lately. One month interest rates are too low, we're reaching a crisis in house-prices, it must be raised. The next month the economy is slowing and we must cut interest rates. The Bank of England seem to be playing it safe and doing nothing. To be fair this seems to be working to a point, but who is truly making the decisions there? The Labour Party apparently denounce the Thatcherite theory that interest rates are a good way to control the economy. They handed over control to the BoE when they took power, saying that they would control
-
I do occasionally like to start some bizarre conversation on a Friday, but this week I'm going to go for something a little more serious. This article raises so many questions in my mind and there's probably even more that I'm missing: Economy hits ten-year low[^]. Quote: The 0.4 percent figure was in line with economists' expectations, however, and so will come as a relief to a stock markets that have fallen for the past nine days in a row. Really? Have we honestly got to the stage where a ten-year low is a relief? And yet I've seen little mention of this on the news today, just more talk about Iraq. Quote: Other financial markets were broadly stable with the pound steady against the dollar at $1.632 When did this happen? Last I noticed, it was up to about $1.45. Quote: Europe's largest economy, Germany, for example, grew just 0.2 percent last year. :wtf:? Quote: Without the jubilee effect, statisticians said, the third quarter figure would probably have been similar to that for the fourth quarter. This is my favourite quote. Is this serious? We take one extra day off in June and it increases third quarter growth from 0.4% to 0.9%??? Quote: But despite [base interest] rates being cut to a 39-year low of 4.0 percent the economy has not emerged unscathed from the winds of recession blowing across the globe. The country's manufacturing sector, which exports much of its output, has borne the brunt of the slowdown. I'm not an economist, I get the basics but that's about it; anything I say here is base on perception, not on any deep knowledge of the subject. But I don't feel bad about that because the economists seem to be as confused as I am lately. One month interest rates are too low, we're reaching a crisis in house-prices, it must be raised. The next month the economy is slowing and we must cut interest rates. The Bank of England seem to be playing it safe and doing nothing. To be fair this seems to be working to a point, but who is truly making the decisions there? The Labour Party apparently denounce the Thatcherite theory that interest rates are a good way to control the economy. They handed over control to the BoE when they took power, saying that they would control
Paul Riley wrote: Without the jubilee effect, statisticians said, the third quarter figure would probably have been similar to that for the fourth quarter. This is my favourite quote. Is this serious? We take one extra day off in June and it increases third quarter growth from 0.4% to 0.9%??? Sadly people's perceptions of how things are going has more of an effect than the reality. Lots of people felt great about the country after the world cup and Jubilee. Now the perception is far more pessemistic, because of the possible war and chance of terror attacks in London. Sad, but true. Paul Riley wrote: Did we elect the Bank of England to run the economy? This is similar to the war issue. The current people in power were elected before the threat of a war. Now these same people are taking the war decision for the British public. Surely if they are going to go to war against the wishes UN, the public should at least get a chance for a referendum to state whether they feel the government is acting in their best interests? :mad:
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
-
Paul Riley wrote: Without the jubilee effect, statisticians said, the third quarter figure would probably have been similar to that for the fourth quarter. This is my favourite quote. Is this serious? We take one extra day off in June and it increases third quarter growth from 0.4% to 0.9%??? Sadly people's perceptions of how things are going has more of an effect than the reality. Lots of people felt great about the country after the world cup and Jubilee. Now the perception is far more pessemistic, because of the possible war and chance of terror attacks in London. Sad, but true. Paul Riley wrote: Did we elect the Bank of England to run the economy? This is similar to the war issue. The current people in power were elected before the threat of a war. Now these same people are taking the war decision for the British public. Surely if they are going to go to war against the wishes UN, the public should at least get a chance for a referendum to state whether they feel the government is acting in their best interests? :mad:
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
Megan Forbes wrote: Sadly people's perceptions of how things are going has more of an effect than the reality. Lots of people felt great about the country after the world cup and Jubilee. Now the perception is far more pessemistic, because of the possible war and chance of terror attacks in London. Sad, but true. See, now that makes some sense. Unfortunately, I took the quote out of context. The comment above it was The fourth quarter figure of 0.4 percent was sharply lower than the 0.9 percent in the third quarter but the ONS cautioned that the third quarter enjoyed a boost from extra output as firms made up for time lost during extended closures in June for the Queen's golden jubilee celebrations. Megan Forbes wrote: This is similar to the war issue. The current people in power were elected before the threat of a war. Now these same people are taking the war decision for the British public. Surely if they are going to go to war against the wishes UN, the public should at least get a chance for a referendum to state whether they feel the government is acting in their best interests? I'm not sure I strictly agree with you there. I've kind of avoided most of the Iraq conversations, because usually when I say anything I get attacked by the hawks and the doves (for daring to try to find some middle ground), but okay I'll run with it this once. I agree with you that the public didn't elect Blair on his pro-war policies, and now he appears to be running away with it despite public opinion against war. However, a referendum isn't an option for two reasons: Firstly, it would take months to organise and give the "enemy" far too much information. There has never been a referendum for war before and there never will be, for good reason. More importantly, there is no war yet. The government have repeatedly stated that they want to go through the UN. Despite persistent comments to the contrary, Blair is not simply following Bush; if anything he has forced Bush to slow down and take the UN route, against Bush's belief that the rest of the world doesn't matter. Blair's position is that if the UN weapons inspectors come back and say "we have no evidence BUT we were impeded in our investigation" then it is a material breach of res 1441 and he rightly EXPECTS the UN to back up its threats. To be honest, I suspect the UN will have no choice, despite the Franco-German teeth-bearing this week. If the UN fail to do so then they will ha
-
I do occasionally like to start some bizarre conversation on a Friday, but this week I'm going to go for something a little more serious. This article raises so many questions in my mind and there's probably even more that I'm missing: Economy hits ten-year low[^]. Quote: The 0.4 percent figure was in line with economists' expectations, however, and so will come as a relief to a stock markets that have fallen for the past nine days in a row. Really? Have we honestly got to the stage where a ten-year low is a relief? And yet I've seen little mention of this on the news today, just more talk about Iraq. Quote: Other financial markets were broadly stable with the pound steady against the dollar at $1.632 When did this happen? Last I noticed, it was up to about $1.45. Quote: Europe's largest economy, Germany, for example, grew just 0.2 percent last year. :wtf:? Quote: Without the jubilee effect, statisticians said, the third quarter figure would probably have been similar to that for the fourth quarter. This is my favourite quote. Is this serious? We take one extra day off in June and it increases third quarter growth from 0.4% to 0.9%??? Quote: But despite [base interest] rates being cut to a 39-year low of 4.0 percent the economy has not emerged unscathed from the winds of recession blowing across the globe. The country's manufacturing sector, which exports much of its output, has borne the brunt of the slowdown. I'm not an economist, I get the basics but that's about it; anything I say here is base on perception, not on any deep knowledge of the subject. But I don't feel bad about that because the economists seem to be as confused as I am lately. One month interest rates are too low, we're reaching a crisis in house-prices, it must be raised. The next month the economy is slowing and we must cut interest rates. The Bank of England seem to be playing it safe and doing nothing. To be fair this seems to be working to a point, but who is truly making the decisions there? The Labour Party apparently denounce the Thatcherite theory that interest rates are a good way to control the economy. They handed over control to the BoE when they took power, saying that they would control
Paul Riley wrote: The Labour Party apparently denounce the Thatcherite theory that interest rates are a good way to control the economy. They handed over control to the BoE when they took power I actually think this was a good thing - interest rates should be in the hands of the BoE and not the government. The Tories were good as lowering rates to give them a political advantage - and I don't think that interest rates shouldn't be used as a carrot in that way. Besides, I thought that this was perceived to be a good thing - I think the Tories would even leave it that way if they ever get into power again (ha!) - along with the minimum wage (*cough* ... they announced that particular policy change through gritted teeth!). Paul Riley wrote: Or are the government controlling the interest rates against everything they've claimed and letting someone else take the blame if it all goes wrong later? Yikes, that's pretty cynical Paul! Though perfectly possible... ;P It does take the heat of them, so if they can still influence the BoE, then they get the best of both worlds eh? I'd love to drag Iraq into this too but if you'll pardon the pun, it's been done to death the last week or so. I'll be cynical and say that what we (the UK population) think right now isn't going to make any difference at all - the war is inevitable - and has been for many, many months. Blair has already given GWB his support over this and he won't back out of that agreement in a hurry!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Paul Riley wrote: The Labour Party apparently denounce the Thatcherite theory that interest rates are a good way to control the economy. They handed over control to the BoE when they took power I actually think this was a good thing - interest rates should be in the hands of the BoE and not the government. The Tories were good as lowering rates to give them a political advantage - and I don't think that interest rates shouldn't be used as a carrot in that way. Besides, I thought that this was perceived to be a good thing - I think the Tories would even leave it that way if they ever get into power again (ha!) - along with the minimum wage (*cough* ... they announced that particular policy change through gritted teeth!). Paul Riley wrote: Or are the government controlling the interest rates against everything they've claimed and letting someone else take the blame if it all goes wrong later? Yikes, that's pretty cynical Paul! Though perfectly possible... ;P It does take the heat of them, so if they can still influence the BoE, then they get the best of both worlds eh? I'd love to drag Iraq into this too but if you'll pardon the pun, it's been done to death the last week or so. I'll be cynical and say that what we (the UK population) think right now isn't going to make any difference at all - the war is inevitable - and has been for many, many months. Blair has already given GWB his support over this and he won't back out of that agreement in a hurry!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I actually think this was a good thing - interest rates should be in the hands of the BoE and not the government. It depends whether the government wants to use it for controlling the economy. It makes no sense for any Thatcher-style government to give up control over the interest rate; contrary to your suggestion, they used Income Tax for political leverage and then interest rates to balance out the damage (although they would never admit that income tax affects the [edit]budget economy[/edit]). For any Labour government, the policy has always been that the BoE controls interest rates because they have no effect over the economy. It seems to me that the whole argument over whether income tax or interest rates control the economy is faintly ridiculous, it's clear to me that both work and it only depends whether you (a) want to use taxes to raise the money that you need for the budget or (b) use taxes to control the economy and arrange the budget around the figure you expect to raise. But it seems to me that for the first time, the Labour government are using the first approach but not admitting to it. But again, I could be missing the point completely :-D. As for Iraq, I'm afraid Megan already drew me on that one :laugh:. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
I do occasionally like to start some bizarre conversation on a Friday, but this week I'm going to go for something a little more serious. This article raises so many questions in my mind and there's probably even more that I'm missing: Economy hits ten-year low[^]. Quote: The 0.4 percent figure was in line with economists' expectations, however, and so will come as a relief to a stock markets that have fallen for the past nine days in a row. Really? Have we honestly got to the stage where a ten-year low is a relief? And yet I've seen little mention of this on the news today, just more talk about Iraq. Quote: Other financial markets were broadly stable with the pound steady against the dollar at $1.632 When did this happen? Last I noticed, it was up to about $1.45. Quote: Europe's largest economy, Germany, for example, grew just 0.2 percent last year. :wtf:? Quote: Without the jubilee effect, statisticians said, the third quarter figure would probably have been similar to that for the fourth quarter. This is my favourite quote. Is this serious? We take one extra day off in June and it increases third quarter growth from 0.4% to 0.9%??? Quote: But despite [base interest] rates being cut to a 39-year low of 4.0 percent the economy has not emerged unscathed from the winds of recession blowing across the globe. The country's manufacturing sector, which exports much of its output, has borne the brunt of the slowdown. I'm not an economist, I get the basics but that's about it; anything I say here is base on perception, not on any deep knowledge of the subject. But I don't feel bad about that because the economists seem to be as confused as I am lately. One month interest rates are too low, we're reaching a crisis in house-prices, it must be raised. The next month the economy is slowing and we must cut interest rates. The Bank of England seem to be playing it safe and doing nothing. To be fair this seems to be working to a point, but who is truly making the decisions there? The Labour Party apparently denounce the Thatcherite theory that interest rates are a good way to control the economy. They handed over control to the BoE when they took power, saying that they would control
Paul Riley wrote: Did we elect the Bank of England to run the economy? Can anyone even name the people making these decisions? Or are the government controlling the interest rates against everything they've claimed and letting someone else take the blame if it all goes wrong later? IMHO, it's the first step to adopt € We've made the same thing with the Banque de France some years ago, to prepare the transfer to ECB.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Paul Riley wrote: Did we elect the Bank of England to run the economy? Can anyone even name the people making these decisions? Or are the government controlling the interest rates against everything they've claimed and letting someone else take the blame if it all goes wrong later? IMHO, it's the first step to adopt € We've made the same thing with the Banque de France some years ago, to prepare the transfer to ECB.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: IMHO, it's the first step to adopt € I dunno, Karl. I understand that it's a move in the right direction and that won't have hurt the decision, I also understand that this might have been the entire motivation in France's case. However, it has always been Labour policy not to affect the interest rates and this was the reason given; if it's truly a move towards the Euro then that's possibly even more devious than my theory ;P As for the ECB, that's one of my biggest reservations about the way Europe is heading. Different countries in Europe tend to hit global down-turns at different paces. If one bank is controlling interest rates in a scenario where it's too late for one country and too early for another, both countries may have to adjust their taxes to balance it out or hit a dangerous upturn-crash scenario. Unify first, establish the common currency, establish common goals, syncronise the effect of a global recession, THEN establish a common bank. At least a 30 year process from where we are now. As I've said before, I'm pro-Euro IF it's done correctly. But the way some countries are rushing headlong into it while others are avoiding it like the plague is not helping. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
KaЯl wrote: IMHO, it's the first step to adopt € I dunno, Karl. I understand that it's a move in the right direction and that won't have hurt the decision, I also understand that this might have been the entire motivation in France's case. However, it has always been Labour policy not to affect the interest rates and this was the reason given; if it's truly a move towards the Euro then that's possibly even more devious than my theory ;P As for the ECB, that's one of my biggest reservations about the way Europe is heading. Different countries in Europe tend to hit global down-turns at different paces. If one bank is controlling interest rates in a scenario where it's too late for one country and too early for another, both countries may have to adjust their taxes to balance it out or hit a dangerous upturn-crash scenario. Unify first, establish the common currency, establish common goals, syncronise the effect of a global recession, THEN establish a common bank. At least a 30 year process from where we are now. As I've said before, I'm pro-Euro IF it's done correctly. But the way some countries are rushing headlong into it while others are avoiding it like the plague is not helping. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Paul Riley wrote: As for the ECB, that's one of my biggest reservations about the way Europe is heading. Different countries in Europe tend to hit global down-turns at different paces. Our different economies in the €-zone are more and more integrated and inter-dependants. That's true we loose this tool at the national level, but we gained advantages which IMHO worth the adoption of the € £ is still an important money for historical reasons, I would quiet say semtimental ones. But regarding the facts, what is the economical power of UK when facing US and European Union ones?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Megan Forbes wrote: Sadly people's perceptions of how things are going has more of an effect than the reality. Lots of people felt great about the country after the world cup and Jubilee. Now the perception is far more pessemistic, because of the possible war and chance of terror attacks in London. Sad, but true. See, now that makes some sense. Unfortunately, I took the quote out of context. The comment above it was The fourth quarter figure of 0.4 percent was sharply lower than the 0.9 percent in the third quarter but the ONS cautioned that the third quarter enjoyed a boost from extra output as firms made up for time lost during extended closures in June for the Queen's golden jubilee celebrations. Megan Forbes wrote: This is similar to the war issue. The current people in power were elected before the threat of a war. Now these same people are taking the war decision for the British public. Surely if they are going to go to war against the wishes UN, the public should at least get a chance for a referendum to state whether they feel the government is acting in their best interests? I'm not sure I strictly agree with you there. I've kind of avoided most of the Iraq conversations, because usually when I say anything I get attacked by the hawks and the doves (for daring to try to find some middle ground), but okay I'll run with it this once. I agree with you that the public didn't elect Blair on his pro-war policies, and now he appears to be running away with it despite public opinion against war. However, a referendum isn't an option for two reasons: Firstly, it would take months to organise and give the "enemy" far too much information. There has never been a referendum for war before and there never will be, for good reason. More importantly, there is no war yet. The government have repeatedly stated that they want to go through the UN. Despite persistent comments to the contrary, Blair is not simply following Bush; if anything he has forced Bush to slow down and take the UN route, against Bush's belief that the rest of the world doesn't matter. Blair's position is that if the UN weapons inspectors come back and say "we have no evidence BUT we were impeded in our investigation" then it is a material breach of res 1441 and he rightly EXPECTS the UN to back up its threats. To be honest, I suspect the UN will have no choice, despite the Franco-German teeth-bearing this week. If the UN fail to do so then they will ha
when I say anything I get attacked by the hawks and the doves (for daring to try to find some middle ground) You middle-grounders disgust me. How dare you not take an extreme position? What gives you the right to proffer intelligent discourse? Who died and appointed you the god of neutrality? Why does your DNA lack the opinionative gene?
-
Paul Riley wrote: As for the ECB, that's one of my biggest reservations about the way Europe is heading. Different countries in Europe tend to hit global down-turns at different paces. Our different economies in the €-zone are more and more integrated and inter-dependants. That's true we loose this tool at the national level, but we gained advantages which IMHO worth the adoption of the € £ is still an important money for historical reasons, I would quiet say semtimental ones. But regarding the facts, what is the economical power of UK when facing US and European Union ones?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: That's true we loose this tool at the national level, but we gained advantages which IMHO worth the adoption of the € Hmmm... I notice that this comment usually comes from the French or the Germans. I don't hear many other nations extolling the virtues of having joined the Euro. KaЯl wrote: £ is still an important money for historical reasons, I would quiet say semtimental ones. I would disagree on both counts. I have no sentimental attachment to sterling, nor do I think it gives us a lot of power. I'd give it up for another currency in an instant if I thought it would benefit the country (but if it were the US dollar, they'd have to vary the colours a bit, all green is very confusing). KaЯl wrote: But regarding the facts, what is the economical power of UK when facing US and European Union ones? Zero. And that's why we need Europe (or somebody, and I don't see many other offers on the table). However, the UK does have political, diplomatic, military and strategic power and that's why Europe (and, in another respect, the US) needs us :-D. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
when I say anything I get attacked by the hawks and the doves (for daring to try to find some middle ground) You middle-grounders disgust me. How dare you not take an extreme position? What gives you the right to proffer intelligent discourse? Who died and appointed you the god of neutrality? Why does your DNA lack the opinionative gene?
Ed Gadziemski wrote: You middle-grounders disgust me. How dare you not take an extreme position? What gives you the right to proffer intelligent discourse? Who died and appointed you the god of neutrality? Why does your DNA lack the opinionative gene? I'm sorry :((. I just can't help trying to see both (or all) sides of an argument. It's a condition, I must get help. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
KaЯl wrote: That's true we loose this tool at the national level, but we gained advantages which IMHO worth the adoption of the € Hmmm... I notice that this comment usually comes from the French or the Germans. I don't hear many other nations extolling the virtues of having joined the Euro. KaЯl wrote: £ is still an important money for historical reasons, I would quiet say semtimental ones. I would disagree on both counts. I have no sentimental attachment to sterling, nor do I think it gives us a lot of power. I'd give it up for another currency in an instant if I thought it would benefit the country (but if it were the US dollar, they'd have to vary the colours a bit, all green is very confusing). KaЯl wrote: But regarding the facts, what is the economical power of UK when facing US and European Union ones? Zero. And that's why we need Europe (or somebody, and I don't see many other offers on the table). However, the UK does have political, diplomatic, military and strategic power and that's why Europe (and, in another respect, the US) needs us :-D. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Paul Riley wrote: I notice that this comment usually comes from the French or the Germans I'm not so sure Germans are so enthusiastic, they probably miss the Mark. However that's true our both Nations want to build something together[^] I often read criticisms about a French Imperialism, using EU to gain power on Europe. As French, I've never had this feeling, and never heard about this plan. We want a strong Europe, as to regain the first position we, Europeans, lost thanks to WWs, as to definitively stop wars on our continent. It worked between France and Germany, so it's possible to everyone. Paul Riley wrote: I have no sentimental attachment to sterling, nor do I think it gives us a lot of power I was refering to the mediatic cover over the £, for example on financial TVs, which is still considered as a major currency. Paul Riley wrote: However, the UK does have political, diplomatic, military and strategic power and that's why Europe (and, in another respect, the US) needs us Europe needs UK, only if UK wants to be European. The time will come when your country will have to make a choice, choose a side, and accept the consequences. There could be a good partnership between France and UK about foreign policy and Defense matters. Since WWI we are used to it, and it's generally good for both countries, or at least it works (hardly, I agree, but it works :)) For the first one, it would obliged the Kingdom to think by itself rather to be stalinianly aligned on Bush positions, but is UK ready for this?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
when I say anything I get attacked by the hawks and the doves (for daring to try to find some middle ground) You middle-grounders disgust me. How dare you not take an extreme position? What gives you the right to proffer intelligent discourse? Who died and appointed you the god of neutrality? Why does your DNA lack the opinionative gene?
Ed Gadziemski wrote: How dare you not take an extreme position? What gives you the right to proffer intelligent discourse? Who died and appointed you the god of neutrality? Cogito, ergo sum Anybody may has an opinion, and has the right to express it, when not hateful. Ed Gadziemski wrote: Why does your DNA lack the opinionative gene? Are you trying to support eugenism?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Paul Riley wrote: I notice that this comment usually comes from the French or the Germans I'm not so sure Germans are so enthusiastic, they probably miss the Mark. However that's true our both Nations want to build something together[^] I often read criticisms about a French Imperialism, using EU to gain power on Europe. As French, I've never had this feeling, and never heard about this plan. We want a strong Europe, as to regain the first position we, Europeans, lost thanks to WWs, as to definitively stop wars on our continent. It worked between France and Germany, so it's possible to everyone. Paul Riley wrote: I have no sentimental attachment to sterling, nor do I think it gives us a lot of power I was refering to the mediatic cover over the £, for example on financial TVs, which is still considered as a major currency. Paul Riley wrote: However, the UK does have political, diplomatic, military and strategic power and that's why Europe (and, in another respect, the US) needs us Europe needs UK, only if UK wants to be European. The time will come when your country will have to make a choice, choose a side, and accept the consequences. There could be a good partnership between France and UK about foreign policy and Defense matters. Since WWI we are used to it, and it's generally good for both countries, or at least it works (hardly, I agree, but it works :)) For the first one, it would obliged the Kingdom to think by itself rather to be stalinianly aligned on Bush positions, but is UK ready for this?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
OK, here's my 2p. Personally, I hold no sentimental attachment to the £, and, if it is in the best interests of our economy to join, then I think we should. However, Sterling does have that affect on many people who would see the loss of our currency as a massive blow to our independence. Speak to anyone my Dads age (he's in his 60s ... average Tory age! ;) ) and they'll go blue in the face arguing that we should keep the £ - perhaps letting sentiment cloud judgement. The media here in the UK will, unfortunately, decide whether we join the € or not. And, I have to say, while Rupert Murdoch owns a large chunk of the UK media (especially The Sun!), the chances of New Labour winning a € referendum anytime soon are bleak - hence there won't be one anytime soon. There is no way Tony will call a referendum unless he is VERY confident of victory. To swing the media behind the € is going to be a massive challenge if Tony does decide to go for it - or is getting so confident that he thinks it's a sure-thing? I think the € will happen eventually, but I cannot see it for a long time ... unless ...there is a secret government agenda to sink the £ and then offer the advantages of the € as a way out. Some may argue that this is already happening - devalue the £ and watch a stronger € win people over ... but this could also be a gamble in itself. We'll know soon enough though won't we? Isn't there going to be an announcement concerning the fabled "5 economic tests" in June? :confused:
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Paul Riley wrote: I notice that this comment usually comes from the French or the Germans I'm not so sure Germans are so enthusiastic, they probably miss the Mark. However that's true our both Nations want to build something together[^] I often read criticisms about a French Imperialism, using EU to gain power on Europe. As French, I've never had this feeling, and never heard about this plan. We want a strong Europe, as to regain the first position we, Europeans, lost thanks to WWs, as to definitively stop wars on our continent. It worked between France and Germany, so it's possible to everyone. Paul Riley wrote: I have no sentimental attachment to sterling, nor do I think it gives us a lot of power I was refering to the mediatic cover over the £, for example on financial TVs, which is still considered as a major currency. Paul Riley wrote: However, the UK does have political, diplomatic, military and strategic power and that's why Europe (and, in another respect, the US) needs us Europe needs UK, only if UK wants to be European. The time will come when your country will have to make a choice, choose a side, and accept the consequences. There could be a good partnership between France and UK about foreign policy and Defense matters. Since WWI we are used to it, and it's generally good for both countries, or at least it works (hardly, I agree, but it works :)) For the first one, it would obliged the Kingdom to think by itself rather to be stalinianly aligned on Bush positions, but is UK ready for this?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: I'm not so sure Germans are so enthusiastic, they probably miss the Mark. I've spoken to more Germans than anyone over this and they've all surprised me in their huge support for the Euro. KaЯl wrote: However that's true our both Nations want to build something together[^] Uggh! You actually bought into this and yet you accuse us of not thinking for ourselves? X| KaЯl wrote: I often read criticisms about a French Imperialism, using EU to gain power on Europe. I wouldn't buy into that either, it's just another extreme opinion. I suspect the truth is that France, much like a heavy cannabis user, thinks with a "if we like it, everyone will" mentality. KaЯl wrote: Europe needs UK, only if UK wants to be European. The time will come when your country will have to make a choice, choose a side, and accept the consequences. I was with you up to "choose a side". I sincerely don't think it will ever go that far, and I think in the long run you'll largely have Britain to thank for it. Of course, you won't believe that until you see it and I don't expect you to. KaЯl wrote: There could be a good partnership between France and UK about foreign policy and Defense matters. Since WWI we are used to it, and it's generally good for both countries, or at least it works (hardly, I agree, but it works ) I'm inclined to agree with that. I think if France, the UK, and Germany could actually get together it would be an incredible force. I think if all of Europe could get together then it would be good for everyone. BUT, I think if France and others blindly trot towards the union without a consideration for each other then it bodes very badly for all. KaЯl wrote: For the first one, it would obliged the Kingdom to think by itself rather to be stalinianly aligned on Bush positions, but is UK ready for this? Oh PLEASE! :mad: You know Karl, we've had a lot of these conversations and we agree on about half the things we say and respectfully differ on others, but this attitude (from Europeans and Brits alike, not just from you) is really starting to bug me now. How is it any different from Bush's rhetoric? "If you don't agree with us then you're clearly not thinking and standing behind those we disagree with." Does it not occur to anyone that someone might hav
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote: How dare you not take an extreme position? What gives you the right to proffer intelligent discourse? Who died and appointed you the god of neutrality? Cogito, ergo sum Anybody may has an opinion, and has the right to express it, when not hateful. Ed Gadziemski wrote: Why does your DNA lack the opinionative gene? Are you trying to support eugenism?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: Anybody may has an opinion, and has the right to express it, when not hateful. Anybody has the right to express it when it is hateful, as long as I have the right to express my distaste for it by kicking them square in the nuts :-D. I'm kidding! Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
KaЯl wrote: I'm not so sure Germans are so enthusiastic, they probably miss the Mark. I've spoken to more Germans than anyone over this and they've all surprised me in their huge support for the Euro. KaЯl wrote: However that's true our both Nations want to build something together[^] Uggh! You actually bought into this and yet you accuse us of not thinking for ourselves? X| KaЯl wrote: I often read criticisms about a French Imperialism, using EU to gain power on Europe. I wouldn't buy into that either, it's just another extreme opinion. I suspect the truth is that France, much like a heavy cannabis user, thinks with a "if we like it, everyone will" mentality. KaЯl wrote: Europe needs UK, only if UK wants to be European. The time will come when your country will have to make a choice, choose a side, and accept the consequences. I was with you up to "choose a side". I sincerely don't think it will ever go that far, and I think in the long run you'll largely have Britain to thank for it. Of course, you won't believe that until you see it and I don't expect you to. KaЯl wrote: There could be a good partnership between France and UK about foreign policy and Defense matters. Since WWI we are used to it, and it's generally good for both countries, or at least it works (hardly, I agree, but it works ) I'm inclined to agree with that. I think if France, the UK, and Germany could actually get together it would be an incredible force. I think if all of Europe could get together then it would be good for everyone. BUT, I think if France and others blindly trot towards the union without a consideration for each other then it bodes very badly for all. KaЯl wrote: For the first one, it would obliged the Kingdom to think by itself rather to be stalinianly aligned on Bush positions, but is UK ready for this? Oh PLEASE! :mad: You know Karl, we've had a lot of these conversations and we agree on about half the things we say and respectfully differ on others, but this attitude (from Europeans and Brits alike, not just from you) is really starting to bug me now. How is it any different from Bush's rhetoric? "If you don't agree with us then you're clearly not thinking and standing behind those we disagree with." Does it not occur to anyone that someone might hav
Paul Riley wrote: they've all surprised me in their huge support for the Euro. :cool:, it's a good news to me Paul Riley wrote: I suspect the truth is that France, much like a heavy cannabis user, thinks with a "if we like it, everyone will" mentality It's a way to express it :) The french republican culture is universalist. In 1789, the Declaration of Rights was for the Man and the Citizen, not for the Frenchmen only. The metric system was designed to be universal (and rational). And try before expressing an opinion! ;) Paul Riley wrote: You actually bought into this and yet you accuse us of not thinking for ourselves :confused: Paul Riley wrote: Of course, you won't believe that until you see it and I don't expect you to. I would be glad to see it. But since Margaret's area, it's true I'm not really convinced. You know, I don't forget UK is not England only :-D Remember the Auld alliance? Paul Riley wrote: I think if France, the UK, and Germany could actually get together it would be an incredible force Not only them! Italy, Spain, Portugal, Benelux, all the others may strength Europe, but they must have the political will to do it. Paul Riley wrote: BUT, I think if France and others blindly trot towards the union without a consideration for each other then it bodes very badly for all. If we are waiting for everybody agrees, we will wait for centuries before getting a result. The Rome treaty was signed in 1957, 44 years were needed to get what we have. But we have no more time, World is changing too fast, we have to evolve, or disappear. So someone has to kick into it, to let it move Paul Riley wrote: Have you ever heard a Brit say "look at France, not thinking for itself, blindly aligned on Saddam's position"? You're right, just Americans :) Paul Riley wrote: Have you thought about the fact that Blair does NOT blindly follow Bush on the Israel / Palestine issue Good point. Paul Riley wrote: maybe "we're" all no better than "they" are, deep down Of course we are no better, just a matter of point of view Paul Riley wrote: Chirac and Schroeder have been as disturbing in their anti-war rhetoric this week as Bush is with his over-zealous pro-war speeches. How does this make them better
-
OK, here's my 2p. Personally, I hold no sentimental attachment to the £, and, if it is in the best interests of our economy to join, then I think we should. However, Sterling does have that affect on many people who would see the loss of our currency as a massive blow to our independence. Speak to anyone my Dads age (he's in his 60s ... average Tory age! ;) ) and they'll go blue in the face arguing that we should keep the £ - perhaps letting sentiment cloud judgement. The media here in the UK will, unfortunately, decide whether we join the € or not. And, I have to say, while Rupert Murdoch owns a large chunk of the UK media (especially The Sun!), the chances of New Labour winning a € referendum anytime soon are bleak - hence there won't be one anytime soon. There is no way Tony will call a referendum unless he is VERY confident of victory. To swing the media behind the € is going to be a massive challenge if Tony does decide to go for it - or is getting so confident that he thinks it's a sure-thing? I think the € will happen eventually, but I cannot see it for a long time ... unless ...there is a secret government agenda to sink the £ and then offer the advantages of the € as a way out. Some may argue that this is already happening - devalue the £ and watch a stronger € win people over ... but this could also be a gamble in itself. We'll know soon enough though won't we? Isn't there going to be an announcement concerning the fabled "5 economic tests" in June? :confused:
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Isn't there going to be an announcement concerning the fabled "5 economic tests" in June? Isn't there an announcement nearly every month on that? I'm pretty sure that Blair says to Brown "pick a number, 1 to 4" and goes with that. Have you ever looked at the exact wording of the tests? http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Documents/The_Euro/euro_index_index.cfm[^] --- sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency; whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change; the effect on investment; the impact on our financial services industry; and whether it is good for employment --- Absolutely stunning vagueness with which we can say every now and then "we're not ready yet" until we think we can win a referendum and then say "okay, we've got 5 this month" and set off loads of fireworks, etc. :-D But seriously, you had to ASSUME those five tests were absolutely necessary. I might have expected a few more as well (like whether we're still on speaking terms with France after we talk to George Bush and they invite Mugabe over for dinner ;P), but there you go. :suss: I had, until recently, always assumed the way he talked about these five tests that they were a lot more specific. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
OK, here's my 2p. Personally, I hold no sentimental attachment to the £, and, if it is in the best interests of our economy to join, then I think we should. However, Sterling does have that affect on many people who would see the loss of our currency as a massive blow to our independence. Speak to anyone my Dads age (he's in his 60s ... average Tory age! ;) ) and they'll go blue in the face arguing that we should keep the £ - perhaps letting sentiment cloud judgement. The media here in the UK will, unfortunately, decide whether we join the € or not. And, I have to say, while Rupert Murdoch owns a large chunk of the UK media (especially The Sun!), the chances of New Labour winning a € referendum anytime soon are bleak - hence there won't be one anytime soon. There is no way Tony will call a referendum unless he is VERY confident of victory. To swing the media behind the € is going to be a massive challenge if Tony does decide to go for it - or is getting so confident that he thinks it's a sure-thing? I think the € will happen eventually, but I cannot see it for a long time ... unless ...there is a secret government agenda to sink the £ and then offer the advantages of the € as a way out. Some may argue that this is already happening - devalue the £ and watch a stronger € win people over ... but this could also be a gamble in itself. We'll know soon enough though won't we? Isn't there going to be an announcement concerning the fabled "5 economic tests" in June? :confused:
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Paul Riley wrote: they've all surprised me in their huge support for the Euro. :cool:, it's a good news to me Paul Riley wrote: I suspect the truth is that France, much like a heavy cannabis user, thinks with a "if we like it, everyone will" mentality It's a way to express it :) The french republican culture is universalist. In 1789, the Declaration of Rights was for the Man and the Citizen, not for the Frenchmen only. The metric system was designed to be universal (and rational). And try before expressing an opinion! ;) Paul Riley wrote: You actually bought into this and yet you accuse us of not thinking for ourselves :confused: Paul Riley wrote: Of course, you won't believe that until you see it and I don't expect you to. I would be glad to see it. But since Margaret's area, it's true I'm not really convinced. You know, I don't forget UK is not England only :-D Remember the Auld alliance? Paul Riley wrote: I think if France, the UK, and Germany could actually get together it would be an incredible force Not only them! Italy, Spain, Portugal, Benelux, all the others may strength Europe, but they must have the political will to do it. Paul Riley wrote: BUT, I think if France and others blindly trot towards the union without a consideration for each other then it bodes very badly for all. If we are waiting for everybody agrees, we will wait for centuries before getting a result. The Rome treaty was signed in 1957, 44 years were needed to get what we have. But we have no more time, World is changing too fast, we have to evolve, or disappear. So someone has to kick into it, to let it move Paul Riley wrote: Have you ever heard a Brit say "look at France, not thinking for itself, blindly aligned on Saddam's position"? You're right, just Americans :) Paul Riley wrote: Have you thought about the fact that Blair does NOT blindly follow Bush on the Israel / Palestine issue Good point. Paul Riley wrote: maybe "we're" all no better than "they" are, deep down Of course we are no better, just a matter of point of view Paul Riley wrote: Chirac and Schroeder have been as disturbing in their anti-war rhetoric this week as Bush is with his over-zealous pro-war speeches. How does this make them better
KaЯl wrote: And try before expressing an opinion! Unfortunately, one can't just try on the Euro for size and then decide they don't want it; it's just not that simple. The metric system does make a lot of sense and always did. I still can't get the idea of kilometres per hour but I'm sure I could if I had to :). KaЯl wrote: I would be glad to see it. But since Margaret's area, it's true I'm not really convinced. You know, I don't forget UK is not England only Remember the Auld alliance? Hey, no one else is interested, why should we be? An Englishman in much of Wales is positively alienated, in Scotland or Ireland they greet us like any tourist. The UK is England nowadays ;P KaЯl wrote: Not only them! Italy, Spain, Portugal, Benelux, all the others may strength Europe, but they must have the political will to do it. See, this is the problem. You keep saying that people have taken the risk and proved that it works and yet you then imply that the political will isn't there. And it isn't, because it hasn't worked yet. That proof will only begin to be valid when we are old and grey (or bald, in my case, there's no way my hair is staying long enough to go grey). KaЯl wrote: You're right, just Americans Even then not many, and only because some Americans clearly don't understand the rest of the world. We're closer and smaller and less isolationist, we understand the way Europe thinks. However, the major powers in Europe are as ignorant of our thinking as Americans are of theirs. KaЯl wrote: Of course we are no better, just a matter of point of view I would hope you are wrong there but I'm beginning to agree with you. KaЯl wrote: I believe it was more a signal about the new germano-french cooperation on foreign policy. They made noise to please the media, Iraq is fashionable in these days. I kind of felt that they looked like they were uniting against a common enemy (the perceived imperialism of the US) rather than uniting with each other. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. Anti-Americanism is as fashionable (and reprehensible) in Europe as anti-Muslim sentiment is here and in the US. Apparently, in a survey of thousands of British teens recently, to the question "What is a muslim?" as many as 70% said "a terrorist" (or something equivalent).