Disco, that is a very isolated example of the viability of smaller states combining to form a larger Country. Putting aside the over simplification of Yugoslavia's problems, the UK is a long standing example of how smaller states can live in relative harmony under one flag, Spain and Italy are two other notable examples - it can work and in fact many of the countries we know today were once individual smaller states.
As someone who has been reading your posts on various mesage boards for several years, you seem to be becoming increasingly obsessed with the UKIP view of the European Union. You rarely post about much else these days. Please go and read some pro european blogs/articles or even better read some stuff that isn't so clearly rooted in one camp or the other - you're getting an icreasingly skewed and warped view of the issue.
I know what your saying EA but each Country has it's own political view and if you combine the EU into one political union for the whole of Europe, we will not get anywhere because each country will disagree for different reasons.
Admittedly, I have a very strong opinion about this whole European project and it is something I have taken a vast interest on the last 3-4 years but to suggest Im getting an icreasingly skewed and warped view of the issue is wrong. I normally look at different views before jumping to the conclusion and I have loads of negatives views about the EU than positives. Just to remind you EA I am pro-european but I am anti-EU so please don't just presume me being anti-EU means I am anti-europe.
Can I suggest that you take a look at my profile on this and the Babes fourm so you will see my posting history as will clearly see that I post about other issues (Mainly Charlton)
Disco, that is a very isolated example of the viability of smaller states combining to form a larger Country. Putting aside the over simplification of Yugoslavia's problems, the UK is a long standing example of how smaller states can live in relative harmony under one flag, Spain and Italy are two other notable examples - it can work and in fact many of the countries we know today were once individual smaller states.
As someone who has been reading your posts on various mesage boards for several years, you seem to be becoming increasingly obsessed with the UKIP view of the European Union. You rarely post about much else these days. Please go and read some pro european blogs/articles or even better read some stuff that isn't so clearly rooted in one camp or the other - you're getting an icreasingly skewed and warped view of the issue.
I know what your saying EA but each Country has it's own political view and if you combine the EU into one political union for the whole of Europe, we will not get anywhere because each country will disagree for different reasons.
What's the political view of this country then? You only have to look at this forum to see a whole spectrum of political views so I don't understand how a whole nation can be deemed to have a particular view.
Disco, I'm not sure if you're aware but I think that only Slovenia is part of the EU.
Your totally wrong.
You're
Instead of being an English teacher and correcting my grammer/spelling. Perhaps you should explain why Slovenia is only part of the EU?
Apologies for entering what appears to be a private argument but I think the point being made was that of the constituent parts of the former Yugoslavia, which you referred to earlier, only Slovenia is currently part of the EU
Your missing my point though Morts. Yugoslavia created this state back in the early nineties and that proved it never worked. The EU is repeating history what Yugoslavia made the mistake on. It does not matter if Solvenia is part of the EU.
Not a Balkans expert but this seems a perverse argument to say the least. Are you really saying that the disintegration of Yugoslavia demonstrates that the the EU is similarly fragile? Slovenia was indeed the catalyst but most observers agree that the pressure came from without, not within.
The EU is a difficult one. I've never given a federal Europe much thought in the past but the more I look at the plans the more sceptical I get.
The institutions of the EU are completely unfit for purpose and crucially there is a massive lack of the kind of democratic checks and balances that are core to any parlimentary democracy. I'm pretty certain that none of the three key EU figures (Barroso, Van Rompuy and Schulz) would be chosen by the electorates of Europe and there doesn;t seem to be any mechanism for voters removing them.
This puts us in a tricky situation, there is no way that EU federalists would allow the UK to leave with favourable terms and I'm pretty certain they would actively work against us as the last thing they would want is a large, independent country on their doorstep acting as an example to any other net contibutors who get itchy feet.
Unfortunately, the status quo is not an option anymore. The EU is heading towards a more federal structure, having failed to get a democratic mandate in the past, EU federalists are now using the economic crisis to push through massive constitutional changes.
Our best bet is to wait and see what type of EU emerges in a year or two and try and make an informed choice then. Whatever happens it will never be a simple question.
There are two key issues coming out of this discussion - economic viability and democracy / sovereignty There is no doubt in my mind that the eurozone is a viable area and would be a global power IF it was one political/legal entity - it matters not whether we in the UK "believe" in the €uro for the currency already exists and I see some crowd made 500M the other day betting against a Grexit (greek default) - the area appears to be heading towards a variety of fiscal union measures to hold it together and, unlike Yugoslavia, it has the clout and tradition to carry on... although it is a couple of generations on, everyone can reference the 2nd world war from which the original 6 nation EEC was born... there are many economic and demographic reasons why it (and the UK and the US) might trip up but I suspect a boom in a couple of years will change the tone...
But democracy is an entirely different issue - before banging on about democratic deficit in the EU, I'd like to mention that the shrill tones of UKIP remind me of the fact that where I live, they are the second choice if I don't want to vote Conservative! Is your local MP any more connected to SE London and its needs/views than some MEP? I will always remember that when we lived in near Sutcliffe Park the local MP told his constituents he was at a Middle Park estate meeting the day that parliament voted to go to war with Iraq - good grief! Are the technocrats working for UK PLC any more democratic than those working for the various EU agencies? Is the corruption of MPs expenses any better or worse than EU allowances? To me the real gap is that there is no pan european centre left and centre right case being put via the media and through national parties- maybe this has to follow Eurozone integration and maybe we in the UK have to decide where we sit based on a sensible evaluation of both the numbers and the prospects
Disco, I'm not sure if you're aware but I think that only Slovenia is part of the EU.
Your totally wrong.
You're
Instead of being an English teacher and correcting my grammer/spelling. Perhaps you should explain why Slovenia is only part of the EU?
Grammar. I'm not being an English teacher, but I do think that if you're making an argument about preserving regional culture and values the least you could do is learn the lingo.
As Noss said my point was just that. I'll try and make it even more simple going forward.
Or, if you're slagging off someone's grammar, don't use a solecism like "going forward". :-)
My maths is not the best but I'm sure that's three
Good spot - I think I meant that democracy and sovereignty are two sides of the same coin [with economics being the other main area to discuss]
In the Westminster fringes the debate is moving very fast and the UKIP line is now being openly adopted by "eurosceptics" like Boris Johnson who are now starting to reveal themselves as in favour of a Norwegian/Swiss solution, i.e. bail out of the EU to "maintain sovereignty" - they are combining criticism of the EU with some heavy hitting simplistic slogans and a very thinly veiled attack on "Johnny foreigner"... It has got to the point where Obama is piling in via The Telegraph to ask what the UK is thinking!
I am not convinced that EU structures work nor that there are decent solutions being put in place but it looks like the least worst option right now... and one which the UK should pile their support and expertise into supporting / revising - put simply Europe is a region with a great history and more common values than disparate ones.
As for politicians there are a multitude of arguments why they do not enter debates on the issues of the EU. The multitude are cretinous and simplistic in their ability to absorb complex and nuanced issues, people like the singular solution to everything. If something is wrong then it's the EU's fault, and there is a whole load of truisms about the EU regularly printed in the press which are absolute lies.
The conservatives cannot challenge UKIP for fear of losing part of their core vote. Labour are just sitting and watching and prefer not to put any pro Europe or alternative European policies out for fear of distracting everyone from the Conservative / UKIP fight on the right... and the Lib Dems are in coalition with the Tories so to come out with their views might split the coalition?
Next years European elections will be interesting as all parties will have to be a little clearer on what they actually stand for, or will they?
And as for the US there is an extroadinary level of brinkmanship going on here... not followed the latest moves but heard yesterday that New York State just taken over the running of the Statue of Liberty!
The Republicans should have left Obamacare out of the argument. It's proving to be a slow-motion train crash and Boehner has simply snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2014 elections.
I agree with KHA the financial crisis emenated from the USA. Salespeople sold mortgages for far more than properties were worth. Bankers colluded, both earning generous commissions. These toxic loans were then parcelled up and sold to Global banks, notably ours. More commisions and bonuses. This was fraud. A criminal conspiracy for which nobody has been called to account. No apology from Obama. Few have lost their job even. And no rules have been introduced to stop it happening again.
I agree with KHA the financial crisis emenated from the USA. Salespeople sold mortgages for far more than properties were worth.....
...at the behest of the Clinton administration. Another lesson, as though we needed one, in the law of unintended consequences of governments meddling in markets....... "Help to Buy Scheme" anyone? As old Ronnie said: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
There is contention about the triggers (well a little anyway) but surely none on the root cause, debt. It's an addiction the US must break if it is to survive and the UK come to that, it cannot carry on putting off the inevitable. People wonder why the US is losing competitiveness and jobs are going elsewhere, here's your answer, the debt is adding an overhead on production of goods and services that other countries just don't have.
If you then start adding to the spending it can only get worse, which is why this protest is taking place. It must stop somewhere, whether it's spending on the military or on a health service, it's all spending money that they don't have.
I've attached an interesting graphic (It shows stacks of one hundred dollar bills) showing just how much a trillion is, the word trips of the tongue like it's not there but, when you see a trillion it brings it home.
On this link you can see a debt clock, US National debt is $16.9tr but total debt (national, state, county , corporate and personal) is $60tr.
Disco, I'm not sure if you're aware but I think that only Slovenia is part of the EU.
Your totally wrong.
You're
Instead of being an English teacher and correcting my grammer/spelling. Perhaps you should explain why Slovenia is only part of the EU?
Grammar. I'm not being an English teacher, but I do think that if you're making an argument about preserving regional culture and values the least you could do is learn the lingo.
As Noss said my point was just that. I'll try and make it even more simple going forward.
Or, if you're slagging off someone's grammar, don't use a solecism like "going forward". :-)
Or, if you're slagging off someone for slagging off someone else's grammar, don't use "like" when "such as" is correct.
I agree with KHA the financial crisis emenated from the USA. Salespeople sold mortgages for far more than properties were worth. Bankers colluded, both earning generous commissions. These toxic loans were then parcelled up and sold to Global banks, notably ours. More commisions and bonuses. This was fraud. A criminal conspiracy for which nobody has been called to account. No apology from Obama. Few have lost their job even. And no rules have been introduced to stop it happening again.
There are some changes coming in with Basle III (Banking) and Solvency II (Insurance) which ensure that counterparty risk is brought into the equation when calculating capital requirements. I have no idea whether this is enough to stop things tipping over again nor whether model regulation will be good. End of the day the regulators need to be smart enough and tough enough to ensure the players can stay standing in bad times and good
I agree with KHA the financial crisis emenated from the USA. Salespeople sold mortgages for far more than properties were worth. Bankers colluded, both earning generous commissions. These toxic loans were then parcelled up and sold to Global banks, notably ours. More commisions and bonuses. This was fraud. A criminal conspiracy for which nobody has been called to account. No apology from Obama. Few have lost their job even. And no rules have been introduced to stop it happening again.
There are some changes coming in with Basle III (Banking) and Solvency II (Insurance) which ensure that counterparty risk is brought into the equation when calculating capital requirements. I have no idea whether this is enough to stop things tipping over again nor whether model regulation will be good. End of the day the regulators need to be smart enough and tough enough to ensure the players can stay standing in bad times and good
From some of the stuff I have read, even the people who supposedly did know what was going on didn't really understand the extent of the problems that were hidden in their endlessly re-packaged debt bundles that were sold on. How can this be prevented from happening again and is there any genuine will to change it when 'they' can still get squillions both from booms and busts?
Its called data quality data lineage and model integrity - if someone asserts that a number or model is mostly clean then you simply say prove it and I don't mean a quick kick of the tyres. The global regulators need to get a grip on what quality means at all levels such that players can truly demonstrate their grasp / calculation of risk...everything wrong described in literature on the 2007-09 crash should be assessed and regulated to the right standard... we had whistle blowers at HBOS being ignored for years and that simply must not be repeated
spent a good half hour in bed last night re-reading this thread (i know, i know...)
Bar the odd deviation from the subject, there were some really interesting debate and contributions, so thanks all those who have contributed.
Would be interested to know the thoughts of those with more insight than me on how they see both short-term globally, the liklihood and impact of further problems with US debt. Not so much the raising of the ceiling, but more if at some point their main lenders stop buying their debt ? How wide and impacting will that be ?
And secondly closer to home, what future pain are we ensuring further down the line if the Help to Buy 2 scheme goes through the roof, and over the next few years wages stagnate and energy costs and others continue to rise ?
Also i dont want to go off topic but just read Rodders comments and notice that he hasnt logged on/commented since mid June?? Hope he's okay. Anyway i dont want to go off topic.
spent a good half hour in bed last night re-reading this thread (i know, i know...)
Bar the odd deviation from the subject, there were some really interesting debate and contributions, so thanks all those who have contributed.
Would be interested to know the thoughts of those with more insight than me on how they see both short-term globally, the liklihood and impact of further problems with US debt. Not so much the raising of the ceiling, but more if at some point their main lenders stop buying their debt ? How wide and impacting will that be ?
And secondly closer to home, what future pain are we ensuring further down the line if the Help to Buy 2 scheme goes through the roof, and over the next few years wages stagnate and energy costs and others continue to rise ?
In the short term I can only see the cost of a steak slice and a cup of tea at half time going up ;-)
( backs out slowly from thread to leave it to more intelligent comment)
spent a good half hour in bed last night re-reading this thread (i know, i know...)
Bar the odd deviation from the subject, there were some really interesting debate and contributions, so thanks all those who have contributed.
Would be interested to know the thoughts of those with more insight than me on how they see both short-term globally, the liklihood and impact of further problems with US debt. Not so much the raising of the ceiling, but more if at some point their main lenders stop buying their debt ? How wide and impacting will that be ?
And secondly closer to home, what future pain are we ensuring further down the line if the Help to Buy 2 scheme goes through the roof, and over the next few years wages stagnate and energy costs and others continue to rise ?
There is a very interesting debate broadcast by the BBC on this link, it is well worth a listen.
It is not a case of if lenders stop lending, it is a case of when, no government no matter how big, how profitable, how stable, how central to the economic system or how militarily powerful can carry on borrowing forever, debt must be finite. At some point in the future (near in my opinion) a tipping point will be reached whereby lenders consider lending to the US carries an increased risk, that will increase the cost of borrowing and that in turn will increase borrowing or exacerbate any measures being used to control the budget. The decisions that are made now or when debt starts to increase in cost will determine eventual outcome, there is plenty of time if, they start to listen and lower borrowing.
If you want to know what happens to an economy that cannot pay it's debts see Brazil in the 70's and 80's, of course this has never happened to a principle currency. Potentially it is devastating to the world economy but, I just cant see anyone letting it get that far. They must cut borrowing, the debt to per citizen is $189,485 (according to the debt clock above) and almost doubled in the past five years, it just cant carry on like that.
As for us, our Debt to GDP ratio is at a massive 473%. The choices we have are simple cut spending now or be forced to cut spending when we can no longer borrow. There really is no other way out.
Comments
Admittedly, I have a very strong opinion about this whole European project and it is something I have taken a vast interest on the last 3-4 years but to suggest Im getting an icreasingly skewed and warped view of the issue is wrong. I normally look at different views before jumping to the conclusion and I have loads of negatives views about the EU than positives. Just to remind you EA I am pro-european but I am anti-EU so please don't just presume me being anti-EU means I am anti-europe.
Can I suggest that you take a look at my profile on this and the Babes fourm so you will see my posting history as will clearly see that I post about other issues (Mainly Charlton)
The institutions of the EU are completely unfit for purpose and crucially there is a massive lack of the kind of democratic checks and balances that are core to any parlimentary democracy. I'm pretty certain that none of the three key EU figures (Barroso, Van Rompuy and Schulz) would be chosen by the electorates of Europe and there doesn;t seem to be any mechanism for voters removing them.
This puts us in a tricky situation, there is no way that EU federalists would allow the UK to leave with favourable terms and I'm pretty certain they would actively work against us as the last thing they would want is a large, independent country on their doorstep acting as an example to any other net contibutors who get itchy feet.
Unfortunately, the status quo is not an option anymore. The EU is heading towards a more federal structure, having failed to get a democratic mandate in the past, EU federalists are now using the economic crisis to push through massive constitutional changes.
Our best bet is to wait and see what type of EU emerges in a year or two and try and make an informed choice then. Whatever happens it will never be a simple question.
There is no doubt in my mind that the eurozone is a viable area and would be a global power IF it was one political/legal entity - it matters not whether we in the UK "believe" in the €uro for the currency already exists and I see some crowd made 500M the other day betting against a Grexit (greek default) - the area appears to be heading towards a variety of fiscal union measures to hold it together and, unlike Yugoslavia, it has the clout and tradition to carry on... although it is a couple of generations on, everyone can reference the 2nd world war from which the original 6 nation EEC was born... there are many economic and demographic reasons why it (and the UK and the US) might trip up but I suspect a boom in a couple of years will change the tone...
But democracy is an entirely different issue - before banging on about democratic deficit in the EU, I'd like to mention that the shrill tones of UKIP remind me of the fact that where I live, they are the second choice if I don't want to vote Conservative! Is your local MP any more connected to SE London and its needs/views than some MEP? I will always remember that when we lived in near Sutcliffe Park the local MP told his constituents he was at a Middle Park estate meeting the day that parliament voted to go to war with Iraq - good grief! Are the technocrats working for UK PLC any more democratic than those working for the various EU agencies? Is the corruption of MPs expenses any better or worse than EU allowances? To me the real gap is that there is no pan european centre left and centre right case being put via the media and through national parties- maybe this has to follow Eurozone integration and maybe we in the UK have to decide where we sit based on a sensible evaluation of both the numbers and the prospects
My maths is not the best but I'm sure that's three
In the Westminster fringes the debate is moving very fast and the UKIP line is now being openly adopted by "eurosceptics" like Boris Johnson who are now starting to reveal themselves as in favour of a Norwegian/Swiss solution, i.e. bail out of the EU to "maintain sovereignty" - they are combining criticism of the EU with some heavy hitting simplistic slogans and a very thinly veiled attack on "Johnny foreigner"... It has got to the point where Obama is piling in via The Telegraph to ask what the UK is thinking!
I am not convinced that EU structures work nor that there are decent solutions being put in place but it looks like the least worst option right now... and one which the UK should pile their support and expertise into supporting / revising - put simply Europe is a region with a great history and more common values than disparate ones.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24510440
Next years European elections will be interesting as all parties will have to be a little clearer on what they actually stand for, or will they?
And as for the US there is an extroadinary level of brinkmanship going on here... not followed the latest moves but heard yesterday that New York State just taken over the running of the Statue of Liberty!
Another lesson, as though we needed one, in the law of unintended consequences of governments meddling in markets....... "Help to Buy Scheme" anyone?
As old Ronnie said: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
If you then start adding to the spending it can only get worse, which is why this protest is taking place. It must stop somewhere, whether it's spending on the military or on a health service, it's all spending money that they don't have.
I've attached an interesting graphic (It shows stacks of one hundred dollar bills) showing just how much a trillion is, the word trips of the tongue like it's not there but, when you see a trillion it brings it home.
On this link you can see a debt clock, US National debt is $16.9tr but total debt (national, state, county , corporate and personal) is $60tr.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
American intelligence
Fun run
European rapid reaction force
You've got to be so careful here ;-)
**goes to look up solecism**
There are some changes coming in with Basle III (Banking) and Solvency II (Insurance) which ensure that counterparty risk is brought into the equation when calculating capital requirements. I have no idea whether this is enough to stop things tipping over again nor whether model regulation will be good. End of the day the regulators need to be smart enough and tough enough to ensure the players can stay standing in bad times and good
The global regulators need to get a grip on what quality means at all levels such that players can truly demonstrate their grasp / calculation of risk...everything wrong described in literature on the 2007-09 crash should be assessed and regulated to the right standard... we had whistle blowers at HBOS being ignored for years and that simply must not be repeated
Bar the odd deviation from the subject, there were some really interesting debate and contributions, so thanks all those who have contributed.
Would be interested to know the thoughts of those with more insight than me on how they see both short-term globally, the liklihood and impact of further problems with US debt. Not so much the raising of the ceiling, but more if at some point their main lenders stop buying their debt ? How wide and impacting will that be ?
And secondly closer to home, what future pain are we ensuring further down the line if the Help to Buy 2 scheme goes through the roof, and over the next few years wages stagnate and energy costs and others continue to rise ?
Anyway i dont want to go off topic.
( backs out slowly from thread to leave it to more intelligent comment)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03dyp4q/America_this_Week_13_10_2013/
It is not a case of if lenders stop lending, it is a case of when, no government no matter how big, how profitable, how stable, how central to the economic system or how militarily powerful can carry on borrowing forever, debt must be finite. At some point in the future (near in my opinion) a tipping point will be reached whereby lenders consider lending to the US carries an increased risk, that will increase the cost of borrowing and that in turn will increase borrowing or exacerbate any measures being used to control the budget. The decisions that are made now or when debt starts to increase in cost will determine eventual outcome, there is plenty of time if, they start to listen and lower borrowing.
If you want to know what happens to an economy that cannot pay it's debts see Brazil in the 70's and 80's, of course this has never happened to a principle currency. Potentially it is devastating to the world economy but, I just cant see anyone letting it get that far. They must cut borrowing, the debt to per citizen is $189,485 (according to the debt clock above) and almost doubled in the past five years, it just cant carry on like that.
As for us, our Debt to GDP ratio is at a massive 473%. The choices we have are simple cut spending now or be forced to cut spending when we can no longer borrow. There really is no other way out.