It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When will we join the Euro?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
This is the question we keep asking ourselves, and we always say "its only a matter of time", but when is that time going to come? Majority of shops in the UK accept Euro's and even some of our businesses are starting to trade in Euro's. Many tourists feel it would be easier to switch to the Euro, so that we dont have to exchange our money when leaving and coming back from the European mainland.

Its also fair to say that we cannot keep ourselves at arm's length with the EU. Public opinion is starting to relax of the over and most do not have a problem with it now. Brown is believed to be very pro-Euro and has been visiting European countries, especially Germany and discussing the economic future of Europe.

Myself, i have no problem with the EU, i am a European federalists and i feel that we should finally side with our European friends and join up to the Euro.

[edit]

This site, setup inline with HM Treasury, is extrememly interesting with the words



Regular reports on euro preparations provide an update on the planning work being undertaken to ensure that the UK could make a smooth and cost effective changeover to the euro, and on the Government's work to help UK firms to remain competitive in the European marketplace


To me, that tells me, that we are likely to see a switch over (maybe without a public vote?)

www.euro.gov.uk...

[edit on 28-7-2006 by infinite]

[edit on 28-7-2006 by infinite]




posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
This is the question we keep asking ourselves, and we always say "its only a matter of time", but when is that time going to come?


- Knowing the way the UK has a habit of insisting on being one of the last in (ie when circumstances force us to move out of necessity but long after all the really nice benefits available at the start have been had by most of the others and are no longer available) it'll probably be when the £ Sterling starts getting squeezed mercilessly between the 2 giant currencies that are (in comparison) the US $ and the EU's €.


Majority of shops in the UK accept Euro's and even some of our businesses are starting to trade in Euro's. Many tourists feel it would be easier to switch to the Euro, so that we dont have to exchange our money when leaving and coming back from the European mainland.


- Yes it's interesting that here in NI 'dual currency' is a fact of life especially around the border towns with the Republic of Ireland (which uses the €).

For as long as it lasts there will be those making money on the basis of being able to play currencies off against each other but sooner or later the current relatively benign circumstances are likely to change.
The wheel turns and nothing lasts forever.

Set against the historical precedent 'we' have had an unusual period of economic stability in these last 10yrs or so - particularly in terms of currency stability.....and where it has moved it has been up a little squeezing inflationary pressures - but the British post-war record is mostly one of lurching from one currency and inflationary crisis to another.

Even around the turn of the last century and pre-WW1 the UK faced a decline in world trade share and all the consequent effects that had on currency values and inflation.

Sadly the anti-EU side are either ignorant of this or simply and persistently choose to ignore this (still on-going, actually) facet of the UK's economic situation and how it was and remains the root-cause of the UK joining and staying within the EEC/EU.


Its also fair to say that we cannot keep ourselves at arm's length with the EU. Public opinion is starting to relax of the over and most do not have a problem with it now.


- I do hope so, I'm sick of hearing that childish, pathetic, self-centred, paranoid, ignorant and idiotic garbage about how the EU = 1940's fascist occupied Europe, and how 'they' (oh yes, all 24 of them) are always on the verge of coming to 'get' us.


Brown is believed to be very pro-Euro and has been visiting European countries, especially Germany and discussing the economic future of Europe.


- I agree that GB is very pro the EU as an economic collective but whether that means he is in any great hurry over the € is another matter.

I think GB (like TB) is a canny politician and will wait for as long as it takes to generate wider support on this.

There's no point pressing the people to adopt something they see no great need for just yet......and surely, rightly or wrongly, that is fair enough, a democratic government should reflect the will of the people - although if & when obvious damage is being done to our economy I expect we will also much more in the way of actual 'leadership' on the issue.

But nevertheless, if 'the people' say they don't want it.........?


Myself, i have no problem with the EU, i am a European federalists and i feel that we should finally side with our European friends and join up to the Euro.


- Fair enough but I think it's also worth bearing in mind that not everyone in the EU is in the €.
I myself regret that the UK did not join in the 1st wave (although Major's tories at least did us the favour of not using their typical 'empty chair' tactic and did stay in to help devise some of the early foundations).

But as time goes by I do think we will be faced with an all too familiar scenario; we will have to join because not to would be utterly disastrous and yet all the advantages of early adoption will have long gone and 'the people' will resent that.


To me, that tells me, that we are likely to see a switch over


- It makes perfect sense to me, don't close any doors unnecessarily & always keep the countries' options open.
It's what any responsible, sensible & sane government (that truly is looking after all of our interests) must do.


(maybe without a public vote?)


- Never, not now after all that has been said by all of the major parties, IMO.

When the time comes the government of the day will recommend a 'yes' vote (and might....might....even provisionally join, although I think that highly unlikely.....but then again if it's an emergency 'black Wednesday' grotesquely expensive disaster type scenario I suppose the possibility exists, at least in theory); but it would all be subject to ratification by subsequent popular referendum.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I for one would be saying a big NO to joing the euro, remembers the fiasco when Thatcher had to pull the uk out from the E.E., that was bad enough....

I for one is happy to stay with the British Pound
And would be voting no if it came to a referemdum. But we will not get a referendum This Gov will do as it wishes as per usual, Or any other political Party that is elected into office. Tthey have lost touch with alot of the people of this nation (UK).

Is why alot of people are sick of politicians now a days they are a bunch of liars the whole lot of them...



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Dudes, why would you ever give up the British Pound? You've got the best currency on Earth even better than the U.S. dollar...I can't believe any of you would want to join the Eurozone!



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Dudes, why would you ever give up the British Pound? You've got the best currency on Earth even better than the U.S. dollar...I can't believe any of you would want to join the Eurozone!


Exactly I question the same thing...

By the way is the EU going to start having one military soon as well? I thought the EU was for economics/trade alone, when did that change? I don't know much about it so forgive my ignorance.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I have to agree with my American brethren (in the national sense),
why change you currency, I mean it's survived this long, and really
the EU is not a good thing.
But, in the long run, it's your guyses decision, just remember when
your pretty much peasants under the dictator of the EU, don't expect
any pity from us, well me atleast.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   


By the way is the EU going to start having one military soon as well? I thought the EU was for economics/trade alone, when did that change? I don't know much about it so forgive my ignorance.


It was in the pipeline, but nothing else has come out with regards to it, Basically they are trying to challenge or be the same as NATO, what will never happen, The U.K. will not sign up to it, and I do not think the majority of the British Public want it either.

But again it will either be forced on us by the so called honest politicians we vote into parliament, us British always get railroaded into doing things we do not want to, or we are lied to time an time again.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   


It was in the pipeline, but nothing else has come out with regards to it, Basically they are trying to challenge or be the same as NATO, what will never happen, The U.K. will not sign up to it, and I do not think the majority of the British Public want it either.


I do not understand, many of the members (at least the main ones) are part of NATO...So why would they want to challenge it, or be the same as NATO?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
From what I read about it through news reports and some journalists views on the matter, (basically its so they do not have to rely on the U.S. for support if anything happens within Europe or say any other country in the world), or it is to challenge U.S. dominance in Nato, is the impression I got when This first came out, but As I said in my previous post, nothing more has been discussed on this matter.... as far as Ii know it has not ..



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
From what I read about it through news reports and some journalists views on the matter, (basically its so they do not have to rely on the U.S. for support if anything happens within Europe or say any other country in the world), or it is to challenge U.S. dominance in Nato, is the impression I got when This first came out, but As I said in my previous post, nothing more has been discussed on this matter.... as far as Ii know it has not ..


But the UK could defend itself? Geographically it is good, has nukes, has equipment...so why would it need the US? And again, why would the UK want to give up their pound for the euro? The pound is the highest currency...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The reasons in favour of the UK switching to the € are obvious.

The EU is the UK's single largest trading partner and we have been members of it since 1973 and trying to become members of it (publicly at least) since 1955.
That's over 50 peace-time years of our economies converging and becoming ever more attuned and 'in step' with each other.

British membership of the € would cut costs enormously for all of the small, medium and large UK businesses doing business in the EU and give them a degree of economic stability that currently does not exist with the present variable exchange rate.
It would also allow other companies currently not presently trading in Europe to consider taking such a step once the costs, complexities and uncertainties of mobile currency values are removed.

You might as well ask why a single currency is a benefit in the UK; of course it is a benefit and Scotland has not become England and neither the Northern Irish nor the Welsh 'identity' has disappeared
(and nor are they likely to ever either......and in those cases the 'single currency' has been in addition to centuries of actual violent repressive attempts to wipe out the original identity).
Which makes a nonsense of the ridiculous anti-EU line that the EU and € is all about destroying the 'British identity'
(it can't be done even if it really were the aim of some, lunatics).

There are also reasons against.
Unfortunately whilst some are sound and worth serious consideration many of the reasons against rest on emotive scare stories or an unwillingness to accept that change may have to come given the relative sizes of the £ Sterling operating between the US $ and the EU €.

'The pound' is Roman, actually.
It was a foreign import and isn't actually 'British' at all, why should I or anyone else feel any deep emotive attachment to an ancient Roman symbolic token of monetary value just because it has (supposedly) been around for so long?

Just because we have had the £ Sterling for some time (but in fact it has only existed in it's present form since Feb 15th 1971 which is the date when Britain changed everything but some of the names given to our currency and decimalised) is no guarantee things can remain unchanged and still remain to act to the greatest benefit to our people.

If we get to a point where the choice is to accept an economic cost and a reduced standard of living for our people just to keep this 'name' then I say good riddance; make the change asap.

In any case my bet is that very soon after the change we just call our €'s 'pounds' in the UK, the €5 notes 'fivers', €10's 'tenners' etc etc just as we have always done.
We might never make the change completely and we may well keep something of what went before
(just as some people still refer to those long gone 'shillings' and tanners....or your grandparents might even call 10p pieces florins.....who remembers farthings? or 1/2p pieces?
The idea that we don't change any of these things is wildly inaccurate and pure myth).

As for the proposed EU 'rapid reaction force'?
That was never proposed as something to replace or 'challenge' NATO.
The entire point was to have it to try and cover the 'gaps' where NATO could not or would not act.


Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
remembers the fiasco when Thatcher had to pull the uk out from the E.E., that was bad enough....


- No I don't.

I do remember John Major's tory government being ejected at massive cost to the British tax-payer from the ERM (European exchange rate mechanism).

But that was not because of inherent flaws in the ERM - proved by it's successful 20yr existence amongst the other EU countries in it - but rather the crazy and utterly unsustainable rate at which those fools locked the £ Sterling into it when they first went in.

In fact contrary to the British tory myth that grotesquely expensive debacle actually proves the worth, point and reason to have a collective currency.

As a free-standing currency (which, despite membership of the ERM, the £ Sterling technically was back then) the British exchequer could do nothing but let the £ sink in the face of 'market pressures'.
The British Treasury had completely lost it's influence and had no control, no matter what crazy and ruinous interest rate they were prepared to try and attack to the £ Sterling (they even formally announced a central bank rate of 15% for a matter of a handful of hours until it finally dawned on them that the game was up).

The only way to regain some control and influence (ie 'sovereignty') is to collectivise with our EU partners, without that we have no actual 'sovereignty', not in any meaningful sense, as 'Black Wednesday' showed quite clearly.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   


As for the proposed EU 'rapid reaction force'?

That was never proposed as something to replace or 'challenge' NATO.
The entire point was to have it to try and cover the 'gaps' where NATO could not or would not act.



Think you need to really read up on this:




EU defence ministers have pledged some 60,000 troops for a rapid reaction force capable of being deployed at short notice.

Ministers say Europe needs to co-operate more closely on defence matters. Critics say the rapid reaction force is tantamount to the creation of an EU army.

Does a rapid reaction force ensure that Europe deals with conflicts more efficiently? Does it make the world safer? Or does it amount to the creation of a European army that would undermine NATO and therefore global security?



So yes there was proposal on this, so you are wrong on this one Sminkey




The move is being seen as Europe's first steps towards mounting its own military operations after decades of reliance on the United States and Nato.


Link: news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Oks I got one name wrong it was Majors Gov who is in office when Black wednesday happenned here in the U.K. And not Thatcher




Sept 1992 - Black Wednesday. Britain pulls sterling out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) as the pound collapses under speculative pressure.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
sj, reproducing some media comment and opinion doesn't prove anything about the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) or the proposed Euro rapid reaction force.

I can only advise you read some sources other than just the media outlets on this kind of stuff.


The central aim of ESDP is to provide military and civilian assets for international conflict prevention and crisis management. Since the EU seeks to promote non-violent settlement of conflicts, alongside the military capabilities the EU aims to emphasise the development of civilian capabilities which focus on the four priority areas (police, rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection capacities) adopted at the June 2000 Feira European Council.

ESDP seeks to strengthen and consolidate the EU's alliance with the US and Canada within the framework of NATO, and it aims to heed the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ESDP's purpose is not to replace but to complement NATO.

Although ESDP is conceived as part of CFSP and thus falls under the EU's second (intergovernmental) pillar, a successful ESDP will promote integration.

The goal is not to create a European army. National armed forces remain under the control of the national commanders and will only be headed by a military supreme commander for the duration of any EU mission. The EU's historic first military operation beyond the continent - in Congo - lasted from 12 June till 1 September 2003. Code-named Operation Artemis, the operation was mounted at the request of the UN. The 1,400-strong multinational EU force was commanded by French General Jean-Paul Thonier.

www.euractiv.com...

- So, whilst I am always happy to be proved wrong (cos it expands what I do know correctly) I don't think I am on this.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
British membership of the € would cut costs enormously for all of the small, medium and large UK businesses doing business in the EU and give them a degree of economic stability that currently does not exist with the present variable exchange rate.


What you said there is actually true; although somewhat exaggerated. How much does it actually cost to convert currency? I can do it for almost nothing.
There are uncertainties attached but they act in both directions. If you're a business in England that wants to buy Euros then a low Euro (relative to the pound) is a good thing. Just as the opposite is bad (although pounds have always been worth more than Euros).
But I agree let there be no doubt that uncertainty for individual businesses (both currency benefits and losses) are squashed by the Euro.

But...
The Bank of England controls interest rates. This is really good.
Basically there are two types of economy in this world: manufacturing, and consuming. Manufacturing countries want a really cheap currency. This is good because it means other countries can but their goods easily.
Likewise consumer countries (like the U.K) want a highly valued currency. This is because we can buy more of manufacturing countries goods with our valuable country. And the whole thing is controlled by accountability and interest rates.

Europe consists of both manufacturing and consuming economies. This is the thing that is really stupid about the Euro.
Because they have different needs. Former soviet countries want a cheap currency so they can export their steal, farm products, and other goods which make up the bulk of their economy. Likewise places like France want a valuable one so they can sell imported goods in their shops.

Another problem...
Sometimes it’s necessary to slow or increase economic growth by fiddling around with interest rates. If an economy grows too quickly it will build up lots of over capacity, debt and crash (America in 1929 being a extreme example).
Local national banks can control these interest rates in order too suit the businesses within their patch of turf (borders) best.

Because the Euro is a centralised (some would say almost Soviet style currency) its interest rates have to consider the whole of Europe (not just some relatively small bunch of towns or cities in say France or Italy). This is much worse than doing things on a local-national level where you can cater things to everyone’s interests.
In fact several currencies in the U.K would actually benefit the whole country (the north could-would have retained more of a manufacturing base) (although you would need to ensure they were accepted by everybody).

Joining the Euro will mean pain at first (as our businesses adjust to the fact that interest rate decisions are no longer being decided just them in mind). Then it will mean limited growth (compared with what we could have had if our needs were nationally and not internationally tailored).

The EU is a political thing. It may benefit some corporations-investment firms moving very large sums of money (frequently too); and it does have the advantage of being a theoretically more stable currency. But we have our own currency and we can make that almost as stable as we want (an extreme example would be basing more of it on gold; although that will never happen as there are other “better” (more complicated) alternatives).



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
The EU Is a Political Thing That Doesn't Make Economic Sense


- Really.

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

It might even be right.....provided you completely ignore the unprecedented period of stable peace, growth, wealth creation and wealth distribution and the levels of education and health care never experienced before on such a scale or to such an almost complete 100% of the populace.


What you said there is actually true; although somewhat exaggerated.


- You can never just let it be, can you lib?

There was nothing "exaggerated" about that statement, it is 100% factually accurate and true.


How much does it actually cost to convert currency? I can do it for almost nothing.
There are uncertainties attached but they act in both directions. If you're a business in England that wants to buy Euros then a low Euro (relative to the pound) is a good thing. Just as the opposite is bad (although pounds have always been worth more than Euros).


- It's true that there may be times when currency fluctuations can act as a benefit but the opposite is also equally true......

......and if you knew much of anything about British economic history you would know that the £ Sterling has been in decline for a very very long time.

In any case feel free to show me the business that would prefer the added costs involved in the extra procedures) currency transactions actually add as well as the possibility of additional costs due to any volatility in currency transactions, you won't find many.


But...
The Bank of England controls interest rates. This is really good.


- Actually though that is technically correct it isn't the whole truth.

As 'Black Wednesday' proved the BoE doesn't actually have sufficient power to fundamentally 'control' interest rates at all.
If the market is determined that the BoE is wrong there is nothing the BoE can do to contradict and correct them.


Basically there are two types of economy in this world: manufacturing, and consuming.


- I think you'll find that the correct terminology is that countries have two main economic sectors, manufacturing and services.

The actual situation is that almost every developed economy in the world continues with a mix of manufactures and services
(and anywhere with a population with disposable income has "consumers" to one degree or another).


Manufacturing countries want a really cheap currency. This is good because it means other countries can but their goods easily.


- I think you are referring to 'exports' and they can be goods or services, actually.

Exporters like their goods to remain competitive and not disadvantaged by a currency that fluctuates (thereby introducing uncertainty into their pricing structures).
A strong currency can also benefit manufacturers by making the raw materials they import cheaper.
Just as a weak currency has historically been shown to make their goods cheaper for a time (at least until the addition costs that currency decline has brought filter through).

Germany and Japan did very well post-war as large manufacturing and major exporting countries with strong currencies.


Likewise consumer countries (like the U.K) want a highly valued currency. This is because we can buy more of manufacturing countries goods with our valuable country.


- The UK has been a net importer for some time now, rather than simplistic notions of a "highly valued currency" you will in fact find that our manufacturing and services industries prefer a stable currency above all.

This is why they spend huge amounts of money trying to 'hedge' against future currency movements.


And the whole thing is controlled by accountability and interest rates.


- There is a hell of a lot more to it than that lib.


Europe consists of both manufacturing and consuming economies. This is the thing that is really stupid about the Euro.


- This is absurd and frankly lib it is indicative of your ignorance of basic economics and the reality of the situation across Europe.

All of Europe has a mix of manufacturing and services (and they are all consumer economies to one degree or another).


Because they have different needs.


- You could say that about regions of the UK; it is not in itself "stupid" or necessarily a problem at all.


Former soviet countries want a cheap currency so they can export their steal, farm products, and other goods which make up the bulk of their economy.


- OK lib, let's hear it then.

How many new entrant former "soviet countries" are in the € right now?


Likewise places like France want a valuable one so they can sell imported goods in their shops.


- You do know what size the French economy is in world terms, right?

Do you have the slightest idea of the sizes of the French manufacturing and service sectors?

Cos if you did these comments of yours would be seen by yourself for the nonsense they are.


Another problem...
Sometimes it’s necessary to slow or increase economic growth by fiddling around with interest rates. If an economy grows too quickly it will build up lots of over capacity, debt and crash (America in 1929 being a extreme example).


- I can only suggest you go away and learn about the stock market crash of 1929. It had nothing to do with a too rapid expansion of the US economy and everything to do with an irrational belief that the stock market could only move in one direction and therefore debt financing was over-indulged (and the policies of the then US gov exacerbated the situation).


Local national banks can control these interest rates in order too suit the businesses within their patch of turf (borders) best.


- Perhaps if you understood anything about national (not local) bank interest rates and how they are set in the context of the international situation you would see this is simply more nonsense.


Because the Euro is a centralised (some would say almost Soviet style currency)


- Jayzuss wept.
I suppose you'll be telling us next that the US $, the fed etc etc are "soviet style" too, huh?
Hell why go the whole hog and claim the £ Sterling is "soviet" too seeing as it doesn't make enormous allowances for Wales, Scotland or NI?


its interest rates have to consider the whole of Europe (not just some relatively small bunch of towns or cities in say France or Italy). This is much worse than doing things on a local-national level where you can cater things to everyone’s interests.


- That's why the EU has a system of fund-transfer to ameliorate the effects of what you have just described.

It's the same within the UK as the UK government spends to compensate Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland from the effects of gearing the UK economy primarily to the needs of the SE of England.

But that doesn't mean that, despite some identifiable drawbacks, the situation is not on the whole the most beneficial for all concerned.


In fact several currencies in the U.K would actually benefit the whole country (the north could-would have retained more of a manufacturing base) (although you would need to ensure they were accepted by everybody).


- The reason we have a single currency across the entire UK is that on balance it is to the benefit of most that we do.
It might, on one level, suit the Shetland & outer Hebrides to have their own currency but so what?
It doesn't mean that the costs of such a move vanish, does it.....and what would they, as separate economic entities, then 'back' their currency with anyway?
It's a nonsense.


Joining the Euro will mean pain at first (as our businesses adjust to the fact that interest rate decisions are no longer being decided just them in mind).


- If you honestly think interest rates now are determined on a solely national basis then I'm sorry to have to tell you you are plain wrong.

British interest rates are set in an international context (partly because, despite the loss of Empire, Britain still has international currency obligations).

Local considerations are part of that of course but as said before 'Black Wednesday' proved that when the international markets decide something no amount of 'local' considerations matter a damn, they will force a change.


Then it will mean limited growth (compared with what we could have had if our needs were nationally and not internationally tailored).


- A one-dimensional understanding of economics and how the € works isn't helping you make your case at all.


The EU is a political thing.


- Of course, it always was and always will be.
Why shouldn't it be?
Why should the EU be merely a publicly funded aid to commerce and business?


It may benefit some corporations-investment firms moving very large sums of money (frequently too); and it does have the advantage of being a theoretically more stable currency.


- There is nothing "theoretical" about it.
Between the member states it has been completely stable since day 1.


we have our own currency and we can make that almost as stable as we want (an extreme example would be basing more of it on gold; although that will never happen as there are other “better” (more complicated) alternatives).


-


Lib you really don't have much understanding of British monetary history, do you?

Go and learn about Britain's economic history.
Look up how 'we' were forced off of 'the Gold Standard' (twice) and just how little currency stability the £ Sterling has enjoyed since the start of the 20th century and onward.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   


Basically there are two types of economy in this world: manufacturing, and consuming.


The manufacturing Levels in the UK have been declinine for years and are still declining.

Still As I said before I would rather keep the pound that using the euro too confusing for me,



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Yes I know spencerjohnstone but China and India are going to be the next superpowers and they are manufacturing. The world will always have a mix of places where human labour is cheap (good for manufacturing junk); and other places where its more expensive but the currency is worth more. But you're totally right that they are by no means equals. Places were goods are shipped too will always be worth more than places where they are made (but this is for social, political and national infrastructure reasons).
In fact several currencies in the U.K would actually benefit the whole country (the north could-would have retained more of a manufacturing base) (although you would need to ensure they were accepted by everybody).

Sminkeypinkey You know that several currency idea; I’m glad you can comprehend its benefits (even though I don't suggest we literally introduce it at all). Europe before the Euro did have the benefit of several currencies. And yes there were disadvantages; but we can manage our own currency and convert it to Euros if we have to. Europe enjoyed some serious entry teething problems; and may experience problems again that would have been better solved by a "local solution" i.e a different currency with a different interest rate. The Euro can only be one thing at one time.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join