a few Questions for those ''europhiles''

there are a few memebers on this site that know im 100% against the u.k. joining the eu completly, some of them share my veiws others do not, those who do not have put across some very well put together arguments but have baffeled me with ''science'(so to speake).
So whilst ive been reseaching the subject a bit more i came across the following questions that i would like people to answere.
Please bear in mind these Q's have been c/p from another website they are not my own work as im not that intelligent
many thanks
here goes:

# What happens if we go into the euro, and despite all your protestations at the time, it goes wrong for us? Not for the Germans, the French and the others, but for us. We can't leave, we have lost control of our interest rates and our currency, we can't 'renegotiate' the entry rate, and will have I vote out of 30 odd when the others join - so what, precisely, do we do then? Well?

# What guarantee do we have that there won't be a United States of Europe and the end of the UK as an independent country once we have joined? In other words, surely the best guarantee against such a thing happening is never to join at all? We have no guarantee in writing that such a thing will not happen.

# How much, exactly, will it cost us to convert all our systems and so on? If you don't know, why not? Why are you advocating buying something when you don't know what the price will be?

# Why can't we leave if it goes wrong for us? You are advocating us potentially going into a burning house with no exits.

# How do we know convergence, if attained, will be permanent, not temporary. How do we know it will not be like two ships passing in the night - temporary, not permanent, convergence?

# Why do so many prominent people in Europe keep telling us, quite clearly, that they want a United States of Europe, and yet you keep on saying that there is no movement towards a United Europe at all? Surely these people must have something better to do with their lives than to roll out of bed each morning and think "How can I annoy the British eurosceptics today? Or could it be because they mean what they say?

# Who will run Europe if we join the euro? Will it be us, or will the other Europeans run us on our behalf? Will we be the jailer or the prisoner?

# Why are we normally outvoted nearly 14-1 in the summits, on any major issues? This has been going on for 28 years now why should it change simply because we join the euro?

# Name one country that has been a solid consistent ally of Britain since we joined the Common Market/EU in 1973? Why should our failure to find a solid consistent ally change simply because we join the euro?

# How many of our laws will be subordinated to their laws in the future that we have not been told about yet?

# Can you give me one example of a lasting monetary union that was not linked to one state?

# Are the European Central Bank, the people who will make the economic decisions that will affect us all if we join, electable by anyone? Are they accountable to anyone? Are they dismissible by anyone? Are you sure you believe in democracy?

# Why does nobody bother to turn up for European elections in the UK and on the continent if Europe is so fantastic?

# Can you tell me the name of your local Member of the European Parliament, just to establish your pro-European credentials? If not, why not?

# How can we be certain in writing that we will never have to pick up the tab for the others pensions liabilities? Our pensions are much better funded than theirs, so how do we know this won't happen?

# Isn't this really all about personal or professional advantage to the europhiles? They all seem to argue out of personal advantage, not genuine belief in the euro.

# Do you really believe that it is worth sacrificing our democratic system of government merely to try to save a few pounds once or twice a year on holiday, and possibly at best save a few bob off the mortgage?

# There's no such thing as a free lunch. What, precisely, will we be giving up should we join? Where does it specify this in black and white?

# Does Texas have more influence as a separate unit on a world scale, or Australia? Does Bavaria have more influence than Israel? Is it better to be a region of a superstate-to-be, or to definitively be a separate country?

# How do you feel about our gold reserves being physically transferred to the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany?

# How happy are you that the Bank of England would be nothing more than a branch satellite of the European Central Bank based in Germany?

# Putting all political correctness aside, do you honestly trust the Germans and French to run our economy on our behalf if we join?

# What would be the point of voting at a British general election in the future should we join the Euro when all the major decisions will be made outside this country?

# What guarantees have we got in writing that the government will never give up our ability to set taxes independently should we join the euro?

# Do you really honestly believe we will ever be mentally compatible enough with the other Europeans to marry them without ever being able to get divorced? We have been 'going out' with the other Europeans for 28 years in the form of membership of the EU, and it has been one long row after another - surely there has to be mental compatibility first before we decide to spend the rest of our lives with them without the ability to divorce them? In other words, are we really sure our destiny lies with Europe or not?

# Tell me where there is a single currency anywhere in the world without a single government behind it?

# Why have Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden not collapsed since they have been outside the euro, as we have been?

# The last time we joined in a monetary union with the other Europeans was the Exchange Rate Mechanism which we left in 1992, which was a disaster. Last time we could leave, this time we can't, can we?

# Why do we need a single currency in Europe, unlike say NAFTA? Surely this shows the project is political, not economic?

# Decisions in the ECB will be by simple majority. Why should we ever win if our economy becomes out of cycle with the other countries? Do you trust them to come to our rescue should we get into difficulties?

# The majority of our working people have mortgages, the majority of continental Europeans live in rented accommodation. Do you believe that the European Central Bank will be more or less sensitive to our mortgage holders when they decide on interest rates for the eurozone as a whole?

# For democracy to work, people have to have more than just one vote. They need to feel part of the institutions to which they elect people. Do you feel we will ever feel part of the European institutions? If yes, why?

# Will we get more or less bureaucracy from Europe should we join the euro?

# Can you give me an example of a single currency anywhere in the world without a single taxation rate behind it?

# Who will control our future budgets, i.e. our ability to tax and spend - us or them? What guarantees do we have in writing that it will always be us who decide our budgets?

# What is the difference between the unilateral disarmament advocated by CND in the 80's and the unilateral disarmament of our control over our economic policies if we join the euro?

# The EU now has its own flag, parliament, anthem, civil service, passport, currency, 'rapid reaction force,' police force, and law. How many steps away are we from a superstate when they build the rest?

# You say that the "days of the independent nation-state are gone". Can you therefore explain why the following, over the last 100 years or so have broken away from larger units to get their independence:- Ireland, Norway, Finland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bosnia, Cyprus, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Georgia, Iceland, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Australia, Malta, Panama, virtually the whole of Africa, Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, and others too numerous too mention?

# Do you agree that any powerful unelected body will always put its own interests first?

# How do you feel that two-thirds of British law now originates in Brussels, initiated by unelected bureaucrats who are not answerable to any single national parliament?

# Why should we join the euro when the overwhelming number of our companies do not export at all? Our non-exporting companies would have to pass the up-front conversion costs but would receive few of the benefits.

# Do you believe that the British people should be allowed to elect those who make the laws under which they are governed? This is called democracy. Can you explain how we get rid of the European Central Bank if they start doing things we don't like?

# How much more fraud and corruption is there that has not been uncovered in the European Commission?

# Do you want Britain to enter into an irreversible position by joining the euro?

# Can our elected politicians deselect members of the European Central Bank if they want to?

# Will we have to converge on them politically or will they converge on us, politically, if we join the euro?

# There are two main types of people involved in this debate - those who believe that we the British are incapable of turning our country around under our own steam, and that the continental Europeans are more capable of running our country on our behalf than we are, and those who believe we are more than capable of turning our own country around under our own steam without needing to get others to do it for us. Which side would you say you belong to?

# Do you believe that nurses pay levels should be set from the ECB boardroom or by our own elected politicians?

# Has the general flow been from nation state to EU institution in Europe since we joined or from EU institution to nation state? Which way do you think it will continue to flow should we join the euro?

# How would you feel if your local MP writes to their constituents after we have gone into the euro and says "My dear constituents, in future you will be governed by people who you do not elect and cannot remove. I am sorry about it. They may give you better creches and shorter working hours but if they start doing anything you don't like you won't be able to remove them."

Im sorry, but a majority of these questions is made up from scare tactics, half-knowledge, possibly intendedly missing details and playing the nationalist card - and most are designed in a way that they only leave one possible answer for those without a profound knowledge of the matter - and that is pro-separation.

Examples:

# Tell me where there is a single currency anywhere in the world without a single government behind it?

The answer to this is that there has never been a currency like the € before, and therefor the only possible answer to this is that apart from the € no currency existed without a single government behind it. But when there are no comparisons, there cant be a relative judgement to the Euro. The real intention of this question is to discredit the Euro as a singular event that, given that there is no example in history, is bound to fail (else there WOULD be more examples).

Other examples are incorrect generalisations about losing control authority, and notably the purposeful integration of the names Germany and France in a negative context:

# Putting all political correctness aside, do you honestly trust the Germans and French to run our economy on our behalf if we join?

It is interesting how the author/s of these questions fluidly switch/es from "UK interests drowning in the interests of the other 20+ members" to "UK interests being overruled by Germany and France", just as it befits the question. The first kind of setting implicates a loss of sovereignity to a point where the UK will have NO influence at all, the latter kind of setting implicates that "the great betrayal" by the "arch-enemies" is an ever-prevalent danger. the Germans and French would NOT have control over the UK economy, the UK economy would be to a certain part by MUTUAL agreements made by partitionally diversified representatives of the member countries - a fact the author most probably is aware of, and intentionally makes a subjective and not-factual statement.

This is playing on old fears in disregard of the civil development of the whole of Europe (and Germany + France in particular) AND of the lessened importance and evolved policy of the UK on an international scale. The questions are judging a present discussion (of EU) with political attitudes from 1900.

I am not saying that such questions should not be asked, instead questions HAVE to be asked to come to an agreement - if at all. I cannot give an objective answer if a joining of the currency union would have a positive or negative effect on the UK (although I believe it would), and certainly the end result would be that the UK (as all the other members, its not like the UK would become prey of self-centered competiting vultures) would have to transfer certain aspects of sovereign decisions to EU organs - which is not a negative thing itself. However from the writing of these questions you presented you can smell the agenda between the lines in almost every paragraph.

[edit on 5/12/2005 by Lonestar24]

You have a weird idea of "a few" spymaster.

Lonestar24 is right this is all so blatantly loaded and partial as to be in large part just silly.

Prime amongst this stuff seems to be a total misunderstanding (or is it a deliberate lie?) claiming the member countries of the Euro cannot ever leave the Euro.

Maybe you'll have noticed that recent events in Italy show it perfectly possible for member countries to debate and consider leaving.

In any case, international law makes it absolutely and entirely possible - as well as a guaranteed legal right - for any country to leave such a union.

It is true there is no formal mechanism (......and why on earth would they have set up such structures as they devised the Euro?).
It is also true that it is unlikely in the extreme that anyone would want to actually go (because it would most likely provoke all sorts of troubles for all concerned).
We will not be seeing many manufacturers and exporters in the Euro-zone asking to lose the cost savings they currently enjoy and wanting those costs reimposed with a separate national currency again.

As for who runs these institutions?
Well, we do.
Just as we have done all along.
Through our Prime Minister, Ministers and nationally nominated individuals as members of the various summits, 'Council of Ministers', Commissioners, MEPs and on the various bodies.
Collectively.

We are pooling our sovereignty, so that together we will have a greater international influence than that which we otherwise have on our own.
We are not losing our sovereignty.


[edit on 5-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Ill say this.

The combination of US states certainly gives us more influence abroad than one single state would. But the cost is less and less states rights and more intrusion in the daily lives of American citizens by the feds overulling state laws.

And from my own experience, individual European countries have PLENTY of influence abroad on their own. Even a small country like Japan has alot of international influence.

I think the questions of accountability of EU officals is very valid.

The more power you consolidate in a centralized body, the more oppresive and unilateral you become. The US has been learning this unfortunate lesson in the past couple decades.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The combination of US states certainly gives us more influence abroad than one single state would. But the cost is less and less states rights and more intrusion in the daily lives of American citizens by the feds overulling state laws.

I agree just look at Texas they have the Presidency and just until recently had the speaker of the house.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And from my own experience, individual European countries have PLENTY of influence abroad on their own. Even a small country like Japan has alot of international influence.

Nations like the UK, Germany and France have alot of influence on their own however that is due to their relatively large populations combined with a fairly significant GDP per capita(i.e the size of their economy) nations like Spain or Poland are less well off on their own.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I think the questions of accountability of EU officals is very valid.

Right and those questions should have been answered in the EU constitiution. The EU had a brilliant opportunity to show to the citizens of europe a plan for the future and they botched it.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The more power you consolidate in a centralized body, the more oppresive and unilateral you become. The US has been learning this unfortunate lesson in the past couple decades.

Just the world we live in now. The needs of security combined with globalization is leading to a central world authority. I've never been a NWO kind of guy but thats the way the world is going. Orgaizations like the EU, ASEAN and proposed organizations like the North American Community are proof of that.