Is Britain's European Policy in Tatters?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Drogue
Bods: Maybe they are a bit strict IMHO. They would mean there would be no downside, but I am just looking for a situation when the downside is less than the upside. At the moment, that has not happened, but there is a considerable upside.

With matters of such national importance, it would be daft to be lax with the economic assessment. The tests need to be strict.

If our interest rates were close for a period of time, and the business cycles were close, then I would go for it.

Define "period of time". If our economies are truly converged, surely it would be benefical to wait three or four years to make sure. If we are converged, little can happen to make them "unconverged".

Given the risks of the project, it's better to be patient.

Those being met would be great, but if we got close on a few (especially interest rates and cycles) then I would be all for it.

The exchange rate is the critical one. Given the volatility of the Euro since its launch, I wouldn't like to see us pegging to it.

I think we will

I think we won't.

[The Andy-Man]

but the time the UK gets round to saying 'yes or no', the EU probably would have dwindled away, i mean, 20 new members of something to come in next year, the world economy going down the pan, the european economy going down the pan, and add to that, tariff walls and subsidides will only make europe an economically backward and very stagnent market, i personally can't see the EU, in its present form, lasting another 15 yrs. IT has to become more flexible, which will destroy the point of it, which is franco-german dominated market rigidity.

[Clear Skies]

Bods, I'd like to take issue with your sig - greater cranial capacity is not evidence of greater intellectual capacity.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Boddington's
With matters of such national importance, it would be daft to be lax with the economic assessment. The tests need to be strict.

Yes, but there are costs of not going. That fact it is so serious means as soon as it is beneficial, more than it is costly, we should go. When we have convergence, it is more costly to stay out IMHO, even though there are costs of going in.

Originally posted by Boddington's
Define "period of time".

I'd have to do some research to decide that, maybe 6 months-1 year.

Originally posted by Boddington's
If our economies are truly converged, surely it would be benefical to wait three or four years to make sure.

No, it costs us money to stay out. Staying our for a few years to make sure will cost our economy muchly. We need enough time to be sure, but not too much to unnecessarily cost us money - that's a hell of a fine line.

Originally posted by Boddington's
Given the risks of the project, it's better to be patient.

Also given the rewards, it may be better just to leap. We really don't know, and won't know until after the time when we would have to do it. As the quote went "the Economist is an expert who will know tomorrow what we should do today"

Originally posted by Boddington's
The exchange rate is the critical one. Given the volatility of the Euro since its launch, I wouldn't like to see us pegging to it.

True, but the size of our economy, we will dictate a large part of that exchange rate. If we get close, when we join, the we will move it slightly towards us. We need to get close, but we will move it towards us a little.

I still define myself as caustiously pro-Euro, but I have my reservations. Although I have faith in Brown, if not in Blair. Blair wants to do it for his foreign policy, and for political reasons. I trust Brown to be less corruptable, and not to say yes until he thinks it is economically sound.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
Bods, I'd like to take issue with your sig - greater cranial capacity is not evidence of greater intellectual capacity.

I think we established that the cranial capacity is not true. The bit about intellectual capacity is debateable, and quite frankly, I think we have enough political correctness that no-one will do a decent study into it, thus, to be honest, I don't think anyone knows. However I do know that black men can sprint faster than white men, in terms of maximum ability. What is the fastest a white man has ever run the 100 metres? I think it would be over 10 seconds (maybe one has been under?) whereas at least 15-20 black men have beaten that.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drogue
Personally, I'm fine with the constitution, and I am all for there not being a referendum.

I find it amusing that the greatest 'victories' we acheived in altering the constitution since its previous draft is that we don't rename the European Union to the United States of Europe and the word federation is changed to community.

Woopee-bloody-hoo!

I'm of the view "a rose by any other name..." so why complain about the naming, it won't make any difference to the way things are run.

How are things in France?

Just great, they had some strikes today over pension reform.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

How are things in France?

Just great, they had some strikes today over pension reform.

They actually have reasons for strikes in France?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So they say... I'm doubtful though .

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drogue

However I do know that black men can sprint faster than white men, in terms of maximum ability.

I understand where you are coming from, but there is a sweeping generalisation. If there is a gene to run fast it may not be available to all black men, it may just be within a sub-group, just like not all white men can have ginger hair, that is restricted pretty much to people of Irish/Scottish descent IIRC.

[Solly]

Drogue,

Yes, but there are costs of not going

Like what exactly? Please be clear.

Staying our for a few years to make sure will cost our economy muchly

By how much, %wise of GDP per year of convergence and non-entry? Why?

Also given the rewards, it may be better just to leap

Definitely not. If you want a successful British joining of the Euro, it's better to be patient. Reason being? Explained it somewhat in a thread with MikeH earlier. Basically, if we have economic problems of any sort (weak growth, inflation, loss of jobs) after entry - even if problems not related to the Euro - given British politics can you not imagine the likely outcome.

Firstly, popular opinion swings right against the Euro - easy to blame. Quite likely with our tabloid media.

Then the Tories boldly claim "we'll restore the pound".

Labour suffers huge losses in popularity, and has a choice of either leaving the Euro project and suffering a massive loss of credibility for the party, or the Tories are elected and the country suffers massive loss of it following restoration of the pound.

If we join at the wrong time, it will be for a short time only. Surely this is a massive risk which, as a Euro advocate, would not wish to see involved.

Incidentally, the above, if looked at, shows that the Tories would secretly be hoping for an early Euro entry - might harm the country but it would help their political prospects. Would be interesting to hear a Lindley view on this!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I understand where you are coming from, but there is a sweeping generalisation. If there is a gene to run fast it may not be available to all black men, it may just be within a sub-group, just like not all white men can have ginger hair, that is restricted pretty much to people of Irish/Scottish descent IIRC.

True, but it is all about fast twitch muscles, which is determined by genes, as to how fast you can possibly get. The point I made was written about on another thread (the 'Great Britian' one).

It is the most obvious difference, the skin colour, in denoting ethnicity, that is all I use it for. I am simply saying that different ethnicities, seem to have different talents, with regards to sport. The top 10 fastest 100 metre runners are all black IIRC. That is one of the few events that is not about training, as both black and white runners have access to the same training facilities. It's sad, I will never be as fast as the guy I train with, because of our respective genes. No matter how much training I get, I will never run a sub 10 second hundred (although I want to try to get close). It is not just about training, it is about genes. The absolute maximum speed someone can get is determined by genes. Thus, those with that kind of fast twitch muscles in their heritage will be able to run faster, and those people happen to be predominatly black.

[Drogue]

Bods:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Like what exactly? Please be clear.

The loss of exports the the Eurozone, the non-transparent pricing, the extra costs involved in overseas trading, and not being able to alter the direction of a major trading bloc. All the general reasons for being in the Euro, would be costs of not being in.

Originally posted by Boddington's
By how much, %wise of GDP per year of convergence and non-entry? Why?

No idea. I would have to do much more research to answer that. I might do that over the summer, mini- project to show off to tutors when I get (finally) to Uni

Originally posted by Boddington's
Definitely not. If you want a successful British joining of the Euro, it's better to be patient.

I agree, but not overly patient. As I said, it is a fine line, between cautious enough not to cause us major economic damage, but not too cautious that we lose some of the extra trade, and ability to steer the Eurozone.

Originally posted by Boddington's
Reason being? Explained it somewhat in a thread with MikeH earlier. Basically, if we have economic problems of any sort (weak growth, inflation, loss of jobs) after entry - even if problems not related to the Euro - given British politics can you not imagine the likely outcome.

Firstly, popular opinion swings right against the Euro - easy to blame. Quite likely with our tabloid media.

Then the Tories boldly claim "we'll restore the pound".

Labour suffers huge losses in popularity, and has a choice of either leaving the Euro project and suffering a massive loss of credibility for the party, or the Tories are elected and the country suffers massive loss of it following restoration of the pound.

All very plausable, and completely true, but all political issues. While we need to consider them, economically, it may be better to leap in, than to stay our completely. However I prefer a middle road (do it, but not yet).

Originally posted by Boddington's
If we join at the wrong time, it will be for a short time only. Surely this is a massive risk which, as a Euro advocate, would not wish to see involved.

Very true. I think we should wait until convergence, but should not be over cautious. We maybe do not need such strict criterea as you suggested, but something more tangible than Brown's 5 tests.

[Dinner]

I don't see how the EU can keep growing and still let everyone have vetos. The Poles tried doing that in the 17th century and all they got for it was a disfunctional state which couldn't even agree to defend itself when attacked.

[Drogue]

Do the new nations have vetoes? Indeed, the veto is slowly being given away, with QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) and now the constitution. Although so veto's are needed IMHO.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They actually have reasons for strikes in France?

The French have as many reasons for civil strikes as the US has reasons for military strikes.