MilitaryForums.co.uk

When this was first muted I was in favour, I read the Maastricht treaty and still thought it was an even better idea. This treaty laid out in postive terms just what each country had to do to qualify to join the Euro, so far so good. When the the Countries came to qualify there was enough fiddiling of the figures to make Enron look good. France and Germany pulled all sorts of strokes to get near the figures, Beligum and Italy were miles away from qualification, one of the few countries that got any were
near an honest qualification was Ireland.
There were also very large penalties for countries that failed to stay with in their budget. With in a few months of gaining entry Italy was asking
for these penalties to be waived as they could not meet these targets
and it was granted, now France and Germany can't meet these targets and have said they are not paying the penalties as Italy did not pay them.
Now if these rules are not going to be kept just how much is the Euro going to be worth in a few years time. I think we should stay out for at least TEN YEARS and let the whole settle down or go bust, and I am inclined to think the later could happen.

Doubt that the EU will last another ten years, Tab, once the rest of the Eastern European countries join. The cost to the existing members will go through the roof, and the whole damned edifice will collapse. Then the wars will start up again, and,as the saying goes,what goes around, comes around. So many different nationalities and languages will never agree,which is why Germany and France want to get rid of the veto, they can then railroad things through on majority votes, and thus rule the roost.


Aye Owdun.

right who voted yes?? own up!

To be honest the eu constitution (which we cant vote on) will take away most of our national powers. The so called "red lines" are dissapearng already

_____
BRITAIN is facing an uphill battle to retain its veto on key policy areas under the plans being drawn up for a new European Union constitution.

Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, the chief architect of the new constitution, said Britain would have to cede more powers to Brussels if the EU is to work effectively when it expands from 15 to 25 states next year.

The former French president would only guarantee the right of individual states to retain the veto on tax policy - throwing into doubt whether Britain would be able to maintain its block on the "red line" issues of foreign policy and social security when the final document is drawn up.

Mr Giscard d’Estaing said governments had to be "practical" when the union had 25 member states.

His words will add further ammunition to those demanding Britain holds a referendum on the constitution, arguing it will mean irreversible constitutional changes.

Mr Blair has said Britain is prepared to give up its veto on some areas, such as asylum, but has drawn up a number of "red lines" which have to be met if the treaty is to be agreed. These include the establishment of an EU president, self-control on taxation issues and the right to retain the veto on foreign policy.

But Mr Giscard d’Estaing indicated further sacrifices may have to be made and the veto could only be limited to "very precise points" such as taxation.

"We will be 25 countries, as you know, and perhaps in the future a few more, because there is still the Balkan countries, the former Yugoslavia that could join one day or another. If you are a group of 25 or more countries, if there is a veto, you decide nothing, because all the time one country large or small will oppose for whatever reason," he said.


He also appeared to endorse the idea of Britain holding a referendum on the issue, saying he would be happy to see the UK follow the French practice of putting such issues to a plebiscite.

"Yes. I suppose in Britain where you have practically not a constitution but a set of basic laws ... it’s really a national choice. In Europe we must get accustomed to respect the way each country is handling its own national affairs.

"We will present a text, in France it will be probably a referendum, but we accept easily the idea that all the countries will make their own choice," he told
______
Coup d'Estaing
(Filed: 07/06/2003)


It was Louis XIV who is supposed to have told the Paris parlement: "L'État, c'est moi." ("I am the state."). Valéry Giscard d'Estaing - who, although he prefers to compare himself to the American founding fathers, has all the hauteur of the Sun King - might with equal frankness have declared: "I am the superstate."

The British are becoming accustomed to the former French president's occasional lectures on the BBC, in which he expounds the grandiose schemes of the European constitutional convention he chairs. Yesterday M Giscard excelled himself. On the Today programme, he explained why we should be happy to renounce our veto. "If you are a group of 25 or more countries, if there is a veto, you decide nothing," declared the great man. He did not trouble himself with such details as the fact that the veto was originally a French idea, and that a willingness to obstruct the rest of Europe was the reason why the veto was instituted by M Giscard's predecessor, General de Gaulle.

The virtual renunciation of the veto is only one of the irreversible concessions that are being demanded of the British at the convention. Yesterday Peter Hain, the Prime Minister's special envoy, was trumpeting the deal he claimed to have struck, whereby the smaller, ultrafederalist EU states agreed to the creation of a new European presidency, elected (or, in practice, renewed) by the Council of Ministers every two and a half years, rather than the present rotating presidency. It is not entirely clear why this stronger, full-time president would necessarily be in the British interest, as opposed to that of Tony Blair, who has been mooted as a future candidate for the post. In return for the dubious privilege of providing European statesmen with yet another prestigious sinecure, Britain has sacrificed much of what little influence it retains at the Commission. In future, we shall have one commissioner rather than two, with full voting rights as a member of the "college", or inner council, for only 10 years out of every 15.

Later this year, Mr Blair will sign the new constitution. He will thereby renounce Britain's vestigial sovereignty. While Mr Hain was claiming to be "consigning to the dustbin the principle of the superstate" yesterday, Commission officials were telling journalists that the Welsh Secretary's now notorious description of the convention as a "tidying-up operation" was absurd. "This is more important than Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice combined," one Eurocrat said.

M Giscard d'Estaing remarked yesterday that "in Britain you have practically not a constitution". He'll soon put that right, whether we like it or not. Only a referendum can prevent our Government from replacing our unwritten constitution with the Code Giscard.
___

May18

I wouldn’t put too much stock in the U.S. offering membership to Nafta, no matter what fantasies are exchanged on FR it’s not in the U.S. interests. Why? Because the U.S. needs a pro-American alliance in the E.U. to counter the anti-U.S. camp and they expanded NATO eastward for the same reasons. The U.S. has been pushing the U.K. down the E.U. road for years.

The yanks will expect the U.K. to be the cornerstone (for Spain, Holland and former eastern block countries) in the pro U.S. camp, and they'll find it harder to constrain the E.U. if Britain isn’t fully integrated into the heart of Europe. The FR lot may consider the U.S. to be a benign entity in the world, but any American administration would sell the U.K. down the river in a heart beat if it suited their interests.

Stay out of the E.U. and NAFTA and if it’s not too late resurrect trade with the commonwealth nations.

Midshipman786 wrote:right who voted yes?? own up!

I voted yes
But I dont agree with all that goes with the € since we changed over to the € the prices here have gone through the roof .At the start 1€ was about 2 D mark now when you look at the prices 1€ is about 1 D mark and most of the people I speak to want the D mark back or the prices sorted out. Ok when you travel through € land you can check out the prices in the other countries and you dont have any currency charges.

I recently travelled through 8 Euro countries, all were operating the Euro currency, no problem with that. Switzerland retained the Swiss Franc as their own currency but you could buy goods in Euros or S Francs. The UK's closest point to mainland Europe (not Eire/Ulster) is 22 miles from Dover to Calais why do we need to go into a sinking currency, after all Tangier in Morocco is also a very short distance from Spain/Gibraltar nobody is asking the Moroccans to trade in Euros.

OK the banks make money on the we buy/we sell basis of exchange but by using plastic to draw out Euros our charges were about 1.3% which I found readily acceptable.

We were not asked to show our passports once, all baggage holds on coaches and caravans were searched for 'illegals' and ALL cases were moved, it was that thorough. Most border crossings do not exist (Swiss still do have border controls but only randomly check vehicles, not everyone) the process seems to work well.

Ours is an Island State and I want to see it aloof from Europe, if our products and services are good enough they will be bought and traded as they have been over the centuries in whatever currency we use or whatever language we speak, or whatever side of the road we drive on, it matters not. We are a member of NATO/OTAN but today I really do not see the point of belonging to this club anymore, who has supported us in any conflict since its inception? No one to my knowledge.

On Monday Blair/Brown will make a statement about the UK entry into the Euro system, it will be NO WE ARE NOT READY to join, but Blair will appease Brown by saying that the principal is right but the time isn't, this will also 'please' the Noddies in Brussels as they know eventually we will join. Sssssoooo the question is why should we be in it in 5, 10 or 20 years time when the time is right as Tom has said the Germans want the Mark back again, surely we don't want to be saying the same in the future.

OUR FUTURE IS IN OUR HANDS, we put the GREAT into BRITAIN let's keep it there, as there is no way I could be in the state called USE (United States of Europe), this is not what we have fought for since 1066, we have fought for our liberty and independence and apart from the Channel Islands (1940-45) it has stood us in good stead.

May I respectfully suggest if those that feel EUROLAND is for them, that they know where Calais is and that they take the first available ferry and leg it out of here leaving us free to trade with whoever we like whether it be the USA, the Commonwealth, Cuba or Europe. Personally I like bent bananas, Cox's apples, pounds and ounces and temperatures that I can understand.

Cor, I don't 'alf feel better for that!

Spannerman, most of the EU have ID cards to make it difficult for illegeal
immigrants to get get work , social security, health care or their children to use the education system, so they can be more lax on the borders as once they know they are not going to get anything unless they register. then they keep on coming over here were we fall over our selfs to make their lives better than many of the people that live here.

You are absolutely right Tab, we are nothing but a soft touch, I just cannot see how all of this benefits our economy, as far as I'm concerned it will give the Labour Party more votes in the future but less votes from the indigenous population as a whole, talking of which aren't we becoming the ar$ehole of Europe as far as holes are concerned.............

Tom Dickson wrote:I voted yes

Anyone think Tom Dickson is a ringer for Pat 'Bomber' Roach - Not a former wrestler by chance are you Tom

The Nazi's first came up with this idea of a super European state.
It wasn't a good idea then and it isn't one now.

So NO and No again.
As for the Euro - that is a step to far and is a political decision not a monetary one.
It has nothing to do with us as far as I'm concerned.

As for the excuse that it will stop future wars in Europe, the chances it will start one when one country wants to leave and can't.

Anyhow, I can't ditch two thousand years of history because it's not politically correct.

So No, NO, and No again.

its simple our economy is prob the best in europe getting the euro ties us in with the worse off economies making one economy of the strength of the average of the previous so us being strong weakens us and makes the likes of poland and spain stronger

theres so many bad things it would do to our economy
personally i feel no cultural ties to the continent

anyway one consequence of the euro..pensions

______
Your pensions in the uk
_____
Your Pension

Countries in the Eurozone face a huge problem with their pensions. They have rapidly ageing populations and the Governments in the Eurozone have huge unfunded pension liabilities. Britain, on the other hand, is better off because our pension savings are more than France, Germany, Italy and Spain put together.

In order to pay for these pension debts, Eurozone governments have a choice: they can either cut spending or raise taxes. For example, Italy could half their public spending or increase income taxes by 28 percent. If we were locked into an economic union, we would be forced to pay for this pension crisis.

Currently, our national debt is equivalent to £5000 per person. If you include the burden of our own pension debts, this figure rises to £9000. However, if you add our share of the total unfounded pension liabilities in the EU, our national debt would equate to £30000 for every person in the UK (source: House of Commons Treasury Select Committee).

Despite the pressing nature of this “pensions time-bomb” and despite persistent promises to reform, there have been no serious moves in the Eurozone towards pension reform. They are running out of time.

If we joined the Eurozone, we would pay for these bankrupt pension systems in several ways. We would either be forced to pay directly to prop up failing economies or pay indirectly via a higher interest rate. Joining the euro is like opening a joint bank account with a bankrupt person. Britain has had the foresight to save for our future. Let us not put this at risk by joining a bankrupt system.

Yes!
But since when did we have any say in the matter? Britain will not adopt the euro until all the Fat Cats have stashed their undeclared currency away elsewhere. Or have spent it all on properties etc. to avoid the tax man.
But I firmly believe that we should either get "right in" or "right out" of it now. It's got to be one way or the other, at the moment we are just dithering in space. No wonder the business people of this country are in a quandry.
I also think we shouldn't have gone in to start with. No wonder the Commonwealth countries are no longer the friends they once were. they were "Shafted" by us.
Bingalau

Why is it that a lot of polls, like this one, are showing a large majority not in favour of joining the Euro yet the Politicians are hell bent in taking us in against our wishes.

I'm not the sort of person to protest on the streets, I never have done this but if we do not get a say in the euro or the Euro Constitution I will be the first one in the town square, I will not let my country be sold down the Swannee without a fight.

Check out the Dail Mail referendum vote on the constitution on

www.dailymail.co.uk/

and have your say!