NationStates Jolt Archive

you know...while the Americans keep up with their debating over who to vote for president, are there any interesting non-U.S.-presidential-elections topics we could talk about....? *sigh*

Why not the next british general election :D

Why not the next british general election :D

Speaking of Britain... Go to the f***ing Euro already!

Speaking of Britain... Go to the f***ing Euro already!
Dude, I'm English, and from what I can see, the Euro is in a bit of a state. Most of the countries that adopted it aren't keeping to the economic rules laid down when the Euro first came in. Our economy is doing much better than the European average already, why drag ourselves down?
Of course, I think the U.K. needs to leave the E.U. anyway, but that may be for another thread.

Speaking of Britain... Go to the f***ing Euro already!
lol. Yeah Britain really should - it just confuses other Europeans that come here. Britain - alway wanting to be different. *sigh*

NEVER!!

Because the pound is British, and is a symbol of the British National Identity. And you cannot remove the national identity. It has also existed for a long time, and has links in history!!!


(The sad thing is, I know someone who has used this arguement. The sadder part is, he did Economics for a year before saying this, and this was the best he came up with.)

(PS, don't bother pointing out the falisies.)

Why would they join the Euro.. if I had the choice, Germany would still have its Deutsche Mark :) The currency reform was yet another thing politicians decided over the heads of their electorate.

Dude, I'm English, and from what I can see, the Euro is in a bit of a state. Most of the countries that adopted it aren't keeping to the economic rules laid down when the Euro first came in. Our economy is doing much better than the European average already, why drag ourselves down?
Of course, I think the U.K. needs to leave the E.U. anyway, but that may be for another thread.

And I am American, so I am not an angry German or a happy Brit. Personally I believe this:

If a country is going to be in the EU and have the benifits of it and they meet the requirements for the Euro set forth by the EU, then they should be forced to adopt it. If they do not want to have the Euro, so be it, out of the EU.

NEVER!!

Because the pound is British, and is a symbol of the British National Identity. And you cannot remove the national identity. It has also existed for a long time, and has links in history!!!


(The sad thing is, I know someone who has used this arguement. The sadder part is, he did Economics for a year before saying this, and this was the best he came up with.)

(PS, don't bother pointing out the falisies.)


Hehe, I thought you were serious...then I read the whole thing...then I looked at who it was.

Non U.S Presidential elections we could talk about? There arent many, most other western countries have parlaments. Im not American, I dont mind cuz America is where all the interesting stuff happens, and things which develop there will affect the whole world, so you should keep an eye on what happens there.

Why would they join the Euro.. if I had the choice, Germany would still have its Deutsche Mark :) The currency reform was yet another thing politicians decided over the heads of their electorate.

Of all the EU members, I like Germany the best. They are the, at least to my knowledge, least likely to keep the EU from further unifying. Britain does not take the Euro. I know France, in the future, will bitch and complain about any attempt to come under one language (it will eventually be pushed). I know Britain will not complain about that because the language that the EU would switch to would have to be English. I just want to see Europe unify, and I am an American for Christ's sake!

Britain does have semi-Presidential elections.
President Blair or Prime Minister Michael Howard?

Have you noticed that when you say 'President' you generally give the last name, but when you say 'Prime Minister', you give the whole name?

Of all the EU members, I like Germany the best. They are the, at least to my knowledge, least likely to keep the EU from further unifying. Britain does not take the Euro. I know France, in the future, will bitch and complain about any attempt to come under one language (it will eventually be pushed). I know Britain will not complain about that because the language that the EU would switch to would have to be English. I just want to see Europe unify, and I am an American for Christ's sake!

Europe will only see England join readily when it shows itself willing to accept England not as a puppet as many other nations are seen to be, but as one of the top 3 nations with Germany (economic power, generally) and France (political power) as then England supplies the military power.

Europe will only see England join readily when it shows itself willing to accept England not as a puppet as many other nations are seen to be, but as one of the top 3 nations with Germany (economic power, generally) and France (political power) as then England supplies the military power.

Frankly, as an outsider, when I think of Europe I think of three countries, France, Germany, and England.

But talking to a German that I am staying with I get the sense that Europeans are bitter about England not going to the Euro. It is just a sense, no facts or evidence besides me talking to him. So I believe the England will have to give a little to recieve. *sigh* I can do nothing though, I do not even live in the EU. I am there right now, but do not live.

Personally I believe this:

If a country is going to be in the EU and have the benifits of it and they meet the requirements for the Euro set forth by the EU, then they should be forced to adopt it. If they do not want to have the Euro, so be it, out of the EU.

I'm with you on the last part. Britain should leave the E.U. It's bad for our legal system (my primary complaint), and pretty bad for our economy (less significant to me). I'm fine on France, Germany and the rest of them unifying if they want to (and given the nine different national referenda already planned to ratify the new constitution, including one in the U.K., I can't see unification going through any time soon), but we'd be better as an independent nation-state.

I'm with you on the last part. Britain should leave the E.U. It's bad for our legal system (my primary complaint), and pretty bad for our economy (less significant to me). I'm fine on France, Germany and the rest of them unifying if they want to (and given the nine different national referenda already planned to ratify the new constitution, including one in the U.K., I can't see unification going through any time soon), but we'd be better as an independent nation-state.

The only thing is, I still want Britain in the EU. But if they are not going to take the Euro, then I think they should get out. But I definately want them to take the Euro.

Given that I do not live there, so my opinion, in the end, has no weight whatsoever.

I am very pro-Euro, and I'm an American.

In my region, Interior Minister Tse Moana and I are creating a uniform currency for the Region of Equilism.

I don't think it would be wise for England to join the Euro at this point.
Everyone seems to forget that England could conceivably leave the EU altogether and resume tighter links with the Commonwealth.

@Dragons Bay,

there are plenty of elections:

just look at http://www.electionworld.org/calendar.htm#upcoming

5 july and 20 september 2004 Indonesia president Herrera/IFES
6 july 2004 Vanuatu parliament Herrera/IFES
11 july 2004 Japan senate Herrera/IFES
7 september 2004 Cook Island parliament Herrera/IFES
12 september 2004 Hong Kong parliament Herrera
19 sepember 2004 Kazakhstan parliament Herrera/IFES
19 september 2004 Lithuania parliament Herrera/IFES
26 september 2004 France senate Herrera
28 september 2004 Palau president, parliament and senate Herrera
september 2004 Afghanistan parliament and president Herrera/IFES
september 2004 Mauritius parliament Herrera/IFES
17 october 2004 Belarus parliament Herrera/IFES
23 october 2004 Kosovo parliament Herrera/IFES
24 october 2004 Tunisia president and parliament IFES
31 october 2004 Ukraine president Herrera/IFES
31 october and 28 november 2004 Uruguay president and parliament Herrera/IFES
october 2004 Abkhazia president Herrera
october 2004 Bosnia and Herzegovina parliament Herrera (IFES: november)
october 2004 Botswana parliament Herrera/IFES
october 2004 Grenada parliament IFES
october 2004 Ireland president Herrera/IFES
october 2004 Niger president and parliament Herrera/IFES)
october 2004 Slovenia parliament Herrera/IFES
2 november 2004 United States president, parliament and senate Herrera/IFES
2 november 2004 Puerto Rico governor, parliament and senate Herrera/IFES
2 november 2004 US Virgin Islands parliament Herrera
2 november 2004 American Samoa governor Herrera/IFES
15-16 november 2004 Namibia president and parliament IFES
17 november 2004 Cayman Islands parliament Herrera
28 november 2004 Romania president, parliament and senate Herrera/IFES
november 2004 Australia parliament and senate Herrera/IFES
november 2004 Burundi parliament and president Herrera
november 2004 Czech Republic senate Herrera/IFES
november 2004 Maldives parliament Herrera/IFES
november 2004 Norfolk Island parliament Herrera
1-2 december 2004 Mozambique president and parliament Xinhua
11 december 2004 Taiwan parliament Herrera/IFES
12 december 2004 Romania president 2nd round Herrera/IFES
24 december 2004 Pitcairn Islands parliament Herrera
december 2004 Ghana president and parliament Herrera/IFES
december 2004 Sudan parliament Herrera/IFES
december 2004 Uzbekistan parliament Herrera/IFES
2004 parliament IFES
2004 Palestine parliament Herrera
2004 Qatar parliament Herrera

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31 january 2005 Iraq parliament NOS-Teletekst
january 2005 Central African Republic president and parliament Herrera
march 2005 Guinea-Bissau president Herrera
june 2005 Congo-Kinshasa president and parliament Herrera


Well: lets be more serious.
Upcoming elections in bigger european countries are:
2005: General election in Italy
Likely 2005: General election in Britain
2006: General election in Germany
2007: General election in France
2007: General election in Russia
2008: Presidental elections in Russia

Well: topics for discussions now could be Britain and/or Italy.

@Dragons Bay,

another interesting topic would be the new EU constituition. Several countries have announced that they are going to held a referendum on that one.
Especially Britain and Poland are seen to be unlikely passing the draft. Britain because of the general British intrasigence against the EU and the continent in general, Poland due to fact that the draft those not include a reference to God in the preamble, due to the French intransigence in that point. Many other european countries do have the mentioning of God in the preamble of their constituition. France is one of the few countries which hasn´t that and threatened to veto any attempt to include it. That has been harshly criticized by the Pope Johannes Paul II, who is after all from Poland (born Karol Woityla).

Of course, I think the U.K. needs to leave the E.U. anyway, but that may be for another thread.

That's exactly the answer that makes English people so impopular to the rest of Europe.
Do you really think that UK needs to leave EU? And where will UK go? To USA, maybe? As our elders said...:"Rome wasn't built in one day".

As always, excuse us if our English isn't as good as we wanted.

Italian election? Well, funny as Berlusconi is, with his slight-conflict-of-interest ownership of most Italian media and his accusing judges of being Communist when they point this out, I'd hope there's someone better qualified to run Italy, if it's actually possible to run Italy :-) .
British politics, however, is deeply depressing. None of the party leaders are good choices to run my country, none of the parties represent my beliefs. Is it any surprise I'm a little cynical about the value of democracy? :(

Hell lets just anex Britain into the USofA. If they argue, we an always invade em. :sniper:

That's exactly the answer that makes English people so impopular to the rest of Europe.
Do you really think that UK needs to leave EU? And where will UK go? To USA, maybe? As our elders said...:"Rome wasn't built in one day".

As always, excuse us if our English isn't as good as we wanted.

'To the skies... where, we will battle'
-Lord Laserous Explosion.

England doesn't need the EU and doesn't need to be part of it. We still have the Commonwealth which is hard for most Europeans to understand because they lost the links with much of their old empires and so need other European nations to trade with. England has always had disdain for the continent, and until not long ago the continent also had disdain for all other parts of it. Europe is not one big happy family with England being the estranged uncle who doesn't like the family. Europe is a group of cats in a bag who only make progress because their contant clawing of each other generates enough friction to cause movement.

Aaargh! :headbang: England != Britain/UK There are 4 countries in the UK, and only one of them is called England. It's the most populous, but so what? Should I start refering to the whole of the US as California?

Being British is great! Why do we actually have to join the e.u anyway? Can't we just be........British?

Hell lets just anex Britain into the USofA. If they argue, we an always invade em. :sniper:

We all remember what happened when the US tried that with another piddling little nation that wouldn't give up. And we all remember what happened when the Germans tried it.
:p

Do you really think that UK needs to leave EU? And where will UK go? To USA, maybe? As our elders said...:"Rome wasn't built in one day".

As always, excuse us if our English isn't as good as we wanted.

Yeah, I really do think we should leave the European Union. And here's why.

The European Convention of Human Rights was ratified many years ago, but only brought into U.K. law in 1998 (please correct me if this is a year or two out!). I believe this document is bad law; same with the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights that is, I believe, currently being drafted.
I believe human rights to be a flawed concept, primarily because it minimises the concept of responsibility. I believe human beings have abilities which no-one can grant them or remove from them (such as free will). I believe humans are also granted privileges, which must be accompanied by responsibilities for balance to be maintained, and vice versa (no responsibility without privilege). I would agree on a limited set of "rights", to be understood in the context of the responsibilities associated with them, but basing law on human rights ends up with the "rights" of one person battling it out with the "rights" of another in court; how is this right?
Oh yeah, and the economy of the E.U. is a mess.
As to joining the U.S., the phrase "Out of the frying pan, into the fire" springs to mind!

Aaargh! :headbang: England != Britain/UK There are 4 countries in the UK, and only one of them is called England. It's the most populous, but so what? Should I start refering to the whole of the US as California?

USA didn't devolve.
Most of Scotland wants to be called Scotland, most of Ireland likes being called Ireland. Why not call England by it's name too?
Britain is an old idea, one that doesn't really work anymore.

we in the uk need to be part of the eu, firstly to stem the tide of racist, draconian, liberty sapping laws that our govt has and intends to put in place since the obbsession with "terrorism" began. Secondly to create a world power actually able to to say no to the current world superpower, who seem hell bent on policing the world, at the detriment of those without voice....

So, let's talk a bit about Italian elections... :rolleyes:

USA didn't devolve.

I know. It slowly amalgamated by various means. Pretty much like the UK.


Most of Scotland wants to be called Scotland, most of Ireland likes being called Ireland.

Most of Ireland, yes. But most of Ireland is a seperate republic. The majority of Nothern Ireland is unionist. And the vast majority of Scots vote for unionist parties. As do the Welsh, who you seem to have forgotten.

Why not call England by it's name too?
Britain is an old idea, one that doesn't really work anymore.

Eh? The WHOLE UK is a member of the EU. There is nothing wrong with calling England by it's real name, but only when you actually mean just England. When you mean the UK, say the UK. Would I call a shirt a collar just because a collar is one of its constituent parts? And given that the majority of people in it wish to see it continue as a whole, why is the UK an idea that "doesn't work anymore"?

And please bear in mind that the devolved administrations of Wales, Scotland and NI all actually have less independent power in many ways than a US state.

You know what I'm looking foward to this November? U2's new album.

George Bush sucks, period. any other questions? :sniper:

I know. It slowly amalgamated by various means. Pretty much like the UK.




Most of Ireland, yes. But most of Ireland is a seperate republic. The majority of Nothern Ireland is unionist. And the vast majority of Scots vote for unionist parties. As do the Welsh, who you seem to have forgotten.



Eh? The WHOLE UK is a member of the EU. There is nothing wrong with calling England by it's real name, but only when you actually mean just England. When you mean the UK, say the UK. Would I call a shirt a collar just because a collar is one of its constituent parts? And given that the majority of people in it wish to see it continue as a whole, why is the UK an idea that "doesn't work anymore"?

And please bear in mind that the devolved administrations of Wales, Scotland and NI all actually have less independent power in many ways than a US state.

As long as Scotland officially considers itself to be devolved then I say keep it seperate. Britain isn't working right now, Scotland maintains some independence and most of the Scottish people I know make such a fuss about how much better it is then I don't consider them to be part of a unified UK. People consider the UK to be a single nation almost, and yet it works the same way as the EU; cats in a bag.
Either way, it could be considered bullying that England runs most of the UK as it's the biggest and most powerful. Maybe full devolution would be a good idea to let Scotland run things the way they feel is best. Also, I'm sure all the Scottish would like to see Blair unable to run their country. I know I would.
And I didn't forget Wales, but Welsh nationalism is a joke as it has no way to support itself. Wales is too reliant on England to ever be independent.

From out here on the edge of Europe (Finland, that is), what I've wondered about European unification is why they don't just finish what they set up in the Rome charter and be happy with that. The whole point of the EC was originally 1) to prevent the major players, France, Germany & Italy from going to war again by making closer ties between them 2) provide for a common economic area that would lead to growth and all its benefits (I'll ignore the fact that growth's not all benefits). Fine. Do that. Get others to join in on the fun. Why pursue a United States of Europe which so many around Europe (especially the UK) feel is a bad idea?

I'm just asking. I have no answers.

I'm with you Dacowookies!

The UK (myself being English) will be far better off in the long run if they were to join the EU completly. Though the Euro Dollar seems to be weaker than the Pound, countries that have taken it on have increased their quality of life!

We have so many ties with them already such as free passage and of course Football :D

It would be awesome if we all could come together as one power, split into our respective states (them being our countries). In time we will work things out.

This is a dream that i believe will come true in time but may be several years away!

Personally I think that the Euro sucks ass mainly due to inflation rates. Also yes I am a traditionalist in the sense that I like the national identity that each country had with it's own money. I had visted Germany before the euro hit and being an American, I certaintly enjoyed the rate of the Deutchmark being 2 to 1 U.S. dollar made everything to me half price. Now with the Euro, the prices have remained the same as it was w/ the deutch mark but now it's the euro and extremley expensive! I certaintly do not beleive this will help tourism which many E.U. nations benefit from economically. Great Britain should keeps it's pound it is the most powerfull currency on the market and has been ever since I can remember. And there is alot of history and nationality behind it. Asking G.B. to change to euro would be like asking them to knock down The Tower of London and build some buissness offices there. Completely out of the question. Also the Brits carry alot of pride which they are rightfully entitled too.

I'm not trying to spam the board, but seeing you need somthing to do,

Hey, I wrote a cool topic about Moore, exept, this isn't an anti-Moore topic, it's a Pro-Moore and a Anti Moore Topic About what being patriotic realy is and why people hate Moore. Please atleast check it out:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340196

Personally I think that the Euro sucks ass mainly due to inflation rates. Also yes I am a traditionalist in the sense that I like the national identity that each country had with it's own money. I had visted Germany before the euro hit and being an American, I certaintly enjoyed the rate of the Deutchmark being 2 to 1 U.S. dollar made everything to me half price. Now with the Euro, the prices have remained the same as it was w/ the deutch mark but now it's the euro and extremley expensive! I certaintly do not beleive this will help tourism which many E.U. nations benefit from economically. Great Britain should keeps it's pound it is the most powerfull currency on the market and has been ever since I can remember. And there is alot of history and nationality behind it. Asking G.B. to change to euro would be like asking them to knock down The Tower of London and build some buissness offices there. Completely out of the question. Also the Brits carry alot of pride which they are rightfully entitled too.

:shock:
I never thought I'd see the day again.

Do you honestly think that the tourists come to Britain just to look at the money?

How can pride be tied up to the name of the money (rather than the amount)?

Maybe the African nations should do the same thing as the EU. It could be called the Afro.

Coming to Italy. I´m not an expert in Italian politics.
There are many different parties: However: most of them have allied themselves to one of the two camps.
There is on one side the "casa de la liberta" (the house of freedoms) from the center to the right under the leadeship of the Forza Italia (Forward Italy) of prime minister Silvio Berlusconia. The second strongest party in this alliance is the Alleance Nationale (National alliance - the so-called post-fascists - today rather moderate right-wing conservatives) under the foreign minister Fini and thirdly the party of the separatist of Norther Italy, the Lega Nord under crazy Umberto Bossi. In the end of the 1990s the party pushed for an independent state of Northern Italy (which should be called Pandania - so they are padanian nationalists). They are strong in the rural arreas of the north which are tired of subsidizing the south of Italy. However. The great times of the party are over. It is much weaker today than in the 90s.
There are also some small parties in the Casa de la liberta, like the CDU (christian democrats). The old Partido Christiana collapsed in 1993/94 as you probably now after big corruption scandals. Before that time it was dominating Italian politics and was part of every government in post-war Italy. Forza Italia under Berlusconi (which was just founded in 1994) was able to fill the gap. However: his first coalition government collapsed after 6 months. That was actually a pretty average period. From 1945-1993 Italy had an average office period of their prime minister of 10 months.
Now Mr. Berlusconi is in office since 2001. He is already the prime minister with the longest time in office in post-war Italian history (and that given a period of such 3 years).

The opponent of Berlusconi is going to be the current president of the EU commission, the boring Mr. Romano Prodi. His term ends in October 2004 (successor is the current portuges prime minister Barroso). He was prime minister before he became this posts in 1999.
He was a Christian democrat. After the collapse of the Partido Christiana he became the centrist orientated candidate for "Ulivio" (olive tree) in 1996. And he won that time for the center left parties. What parties?? Hell a lot of: There are the former communists which turned pretty moderate.
There are the socialists. There a different communists parties (some are part of Ulivio, some don´t or left it because they were opposed to some cuts of the Prodi administration), and left-wing christian democrats. It is an alliance from the center to the left.

And those are going to fight in 2005 in the Italian general election.

you know...while the Americans keep up with their debating over who to vote for president, are there any interesting non-U.S.-presidential-elections topics we could talk about....? *sigh*
Well... Uh...we may not have any elections here, but we have plenty of stupid politicians and an election that just happened...

I don't know about the Euro, but I think the UK is right to be part of the EU. People say that it means the EU has power in the UK, but they forget that the flip side is true too - the UK has influence in europe.

As long as Scotland officially considers itself to be devolved then I say keep it seperate. Britain isn't working right now, Scotland maintains some independence and most of the Scottish people I know make such a fuss about how much better it is then I don't consider them to be part of a unified UK. People consider the UK to be a single nation almost, and yet it works the same way as the EU; cats in a bag.
Either way, it could be considered bullying that England runs most of the UK as it's the biggest and most powerful. Maybe full devolution would be a good idea to let Scotland run things the way they feel is best. Also, I'm sure all the Scottish would like to see Blair unable to run their country. I know I would.
And I didn't forget Wales, but Welsh nationalism is a joke as it has no way to support itself. Wales is too reliant on England to ever be independent.

Thats all as may be but what he was talking about is that a lot of people from outside the UK often say England when they're talking about the whole of britain/UK and sometimes say britain/UK when they're talking about england. You'd think it would be easy to tell the difference between 1 country and a unification, however popular, of 4 countries.

San haiti

I´m one of those foreigners. However: I´m aware of the differences.
But I wonder: Isn´t the same the case in the case of the Netherlands. Some refer to the Netherlands as Holland, however Holland is just a province inside the Netherlands.
England is of course the most populated part of the UK. However I´m aware that the Scottish and others would be outraged to be called English - they are not.

"they're talking about the whole of britain/UK"
If we are perfectly accurate we have even to differentiate between UK and Britain. However nobody does that really. Tony Blair is not only prime minister of Britain. He is prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By just referring to Britain you leave Northern Ireland out which is of course part of the UK.
Britain and UK are not the same thing: However it is commonly used to use Britain or British to refer to the entire UK. I do that as well. It is just more conviniant and common to say the British and not the UKs or the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Maybe the African nations should do the same thing as the EU. It could be called the Afro.

:D

Anyway, I think Britain adopting the Euro is more a question of "when" then it is of "if".

Oh and place the Dutch general elections in (february) 2007 in that list. But keep an eye out, for many around here hope/think that the current administration won't last that long, especially since the previous administration which wasn't much different set a post-WWII record of 87 days in office :)

:D

Anyway, I think Britain adopting the Euro is more a question of "when" then it is of "if".



I think the same. After all: after Euratom and the European treay for coal and steel in the 1950s the European economic community (EEC - later called EC (European Community) was formed due to the Roman treaties in 1957 by the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Italy and Germany.
Britain decided to stay out but felt obviously forced to join it in 1973, 16 years afterwards. By joining that late it missed the opportunity to influence the development of the EC institutions for sixteen years and had to accept everything what has been decided up until then.
It seems that Britain wants to repeat that mistake. Blair realizes that a Britain in Europe, in the center of Europe could have a lot of influence. Due to the EU enlargement there is a historic opportunity to break the franco-german dominance. The east european nations are not only close to the British views on defense and security policy (pro transatlantic Europe, pro-US) but also in the economic policy (pro free market, deregulation, e.g.).
There is a historic opportunity for Britain now.
But it seems they want to smash. Well: Their problem. At the end they are going to come back, because they don´t have another choice really. Well: there would be one other: joining Nafta and becoming the 51 rst state of the US.

Frankly, as an outsider, when I think of Europe I think of three countries, France, Germany, and England.

But talking to a German that I am staying with I get the sense that Europeans are bitter about England not going to the Euro. It is just a sense, no facts or evidence besides me talking to him. So I believe the England will have to give a little to recieve. *sigh* I can do nothing though, I do not even live in the EU. I am there right now, but do not live.
I honestly wasnt aware that England had signed any treaties or alliances since 1707 as such although England is european, by geographical accident if nothing else,- it is Britain that is a member of the european union. Am I to assume that you pleasant chaps are under the impression that the terms "England" and "Britain" are synonymous?

But to stay on topic- as a Briton im quite sure that the bulk of the British electorate simply do not wish to join the Euro at the present time.(Although there is of course a highly vocal minority of Britons that would like to see us adopt the euro as soon as possible)
No British government will commit electoral suicide by taking the UK into the euro when the British public are- (for reasons good or bad) so adamently opposed to scrapping the pound and adopting the euro.

USA didn't devolve.
Most of Scotland wants to be called Scotland, most of Ireland likes being called Ireland. Why not call England by it's name too?
Britain is an old idea, one that doesn't really work anymore.


Im not quite certain I understand your point- Im not even sure you do?
England doesnt exist as a political entity, although Scotland , Wales and Norther Ireland have various forms of devolved governmnents in place all foreign affairs of the UK are handled by westminster. (thats the "British" parliament rather than the "English" one btw) .
It is certainly true that Britain is an old idea, one that has endured longer than the lifetime of any man alive today- however as to your assertion that its "one that doesnt really work anymore" it appears the electorate of Great Britain disagrees with you- as they consistently vote (wether in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland) for Unionist parties.

Whilst is is of course perfectly rational to talk about seperate English//Welsh//Scottish history, or even language and culture; with regards to international politics all treaties, alliances , negotiations since 1707 have been conducted on the part of Britain as opposed to on the part of "England , Wales.Scotland etc."

@Soviet Democracy,

"Frankly, as an outsider, when I think of Europe I think of three countries, France, Germany, and England."
You forget 22 other member countries of the EU.

"But talking to a German that I am staying with I get the sense that Europeans are bitter about England not going to the Euro. It is just a sense, no facts or evidence besides me talking to him. So I believe the England will have to give a little to recieve. *sigh* I can do nothing though, I do not even live in the EU. I am there right now, but do not live."
He must have been referring to laws regarding economy, trade, agriculture, e.g.
In other areas it is not the case. The EU has no authority regarding foreign and defense policy, social policy, immigration, internal security, e.g.
The EU is not a super state. There are no United States of Europe and there are never going to be one. The EU is going to remain what it is: a Europe of nations and not a super state.

Why would they join the Euro.. if I had the choice, Germany would still have its Deutsche Mark :) The currency reform was yet another thing politicians decided over the heads of their electorate.

I ain't German, but I agree. Countries should keep their currency and their sovereignty...which is why every Europeon country should withdraw from the EU, NATO, and the UN. But I ain't Europeon, though, I'm just a fan...

I ain't German, but I agree. Countries should keep their currency and their sovereignty...which is why every Europeon country should withdraw from the EU, NATO, and the UN. But I ain't Europeon, though, I'm just a fan...

And then what???? Should every country also get is own nukes in order to defend itself? Should every country, regardless how small it is develop its onw military programms? Should there be no cooperation between countries with mutual interests?? And why shouldn´t that be instituitionalized???
Nato under the leadership of the US enshured the security of Western Europe for almost half a century.
The EU regardless of its weaknesses enshures free-trade and a common market between its members.
Those instituitions have a big value and they are very useful.

The only instituition I do have my doubts however is the UN. It´s crappy. It represents the world of 1945.
The security council is not made up of the most important countries of the world as it should be. It´s permanent members are the five winners of World war II.
OK: the US undoubtably (only remaining super power), China (great regional power) and to a lesser degree Russia are great powers. But both France and the UK have lost almost all their colonies since 1945.
Other countries have gained independence and importance since them.
This council is not at all representing the world of today.
It is only a tool for France and Britain to pretend to be more important then they really are.
One reason why any reforms have failed. France and Britain are not willing to give up their veto power, which would be at stake if the security council increases the number of permanent members. Well: and the incapability on world countries to agree which other countries should become permanent members of the council.
If this reform is not going to happend the UN is going to become irrelevant or is even going to implode one day in the future.

I know Britain will not complain about that because the language that the EU would switch to would have to be English.

Are you joking? English is a minority first language in Europe, French and German have more speakers. And why would they bother switching to one language? Thanks to technological advances, it's easier to do things multilingually now than in the past.

Vas.

Are you joking? English is a minority first language in Europe, French and German have more speakers. And why would they bother switching to one language? Thanks to technological advances, it's easier to do things multilingually now than in the past.

Vas.
Other European countries are better at learning a second language (usually English) though, which I think was the reason for the supposition.

To be honest, I think it is a great shame that Britain (as a whole) is terrible at learning other language. The reason for this is debateable.

Are you joking? English is a minority first language in Europe, French and German have more speakers. And why would they bother switching to one language? Thanks to technological advances, it's easier to do things multilingually now than in the past.

Vas.

It is not that easy than you think. The EU has all the official languages of its member states as its official languages. But the EU instituitions have only three so called working languages. And that are French, English and German.
In the past French was dominating in the EU instituitions.
German is pretty irrelevant: only 5% of the working papers of the EU are in German. But since the 1990s English is coming: Why???
Well: the EU is enlarging. The romanic countries who dominated the EU in the past are a minority. In 1995 Sweden, Austria and Finnland joined the EU. That are countries who are more closer to the germanic lanuage English than to French. And the enlargement 2004 with 10 countries can bring a new bosts for the use of the English languae. Almost nobody is speaking French in Eastern Europe. English is the number one foreign language without
any doubt in that region (number two with huge distance by the way is German; Russian is very unpopular and just ranks on third place - but still before French).
English is the language of globalisation, of global business and of modern technology. It is the lingua franca of our time, whether some one likes it or not. I can understand the French intransigence in that respect. But you have to face the facts.
English is the language which most people are able to speak in Europe. It´s not French and not German.

Other European countries are better at learning a second language (usually English) though, which I think was the reason for the supposition.

To be honest, I think it is a great shame that Britain (as a whole) is terrible at learning other language. The reason for this is debateable.

The reason is: you don´t need to. English is the lingua franca of our time.
The British empire is one of the reason for that. Another that one former part of this empire - today the United States of America - is the only remaining super power and the leading country of the world: being it in business, since or military. The US is on the first place. And they are speaking English - well or American English - however you want to call it.

I think sometimes people put too much cultural emphasis on currency. After all, the soul and culture of Britain, or any nation, is in its people not its currency. I think the British public needs to be told more by the government of the benefits the Euro would bring to Britian. We're contantly being bombarded by right-wing anti-euro views from newspapers but, as of yet, we have not been told much of the advantages to British adoption of the Euro.

The only instituition I do have my doubts however is the UN. It´s crappy. It represents the world of 1945.
The security council is not made up of the most important countries of the world as it should be. It´s permanent members are the five winners of World war II.
OK: the US undoubtably (only remaining super power), China (great regional power) and to a lesser degree Russia are great powers. But both France and the UK have lost almost all their colonies since 1945.
Other countries have gained independence and importance since them.
This council is not at all representing the world of today.
It is only a tool for France and Britain to pretend to be more important then they really are.

Why should any country have dominance over the UN for that matter? I'm sure many countries are resentful of the Security Council for its disproportionate representation of the UN on matters of security. Removing France and Britain from the council would just cause further tension, since Europe would then have no representation. The Council also lacks representation from the Middle East, a very inportant political area at the moment, as well as Africa and South America.

Heyy...I totally forgot about this thread.... :P

Next time when I start a thread like this I will only appeal to Asians only. I am in dire need to talk about something local.

Why should any country have dominance over the UN for that matter? I'm sure many countries are resentful of the Security Council for its disproportionate representation of the UN on matters of security. Removing France and Britain from the council would just cause further tension, since Europe would then have no representation. The Council also lacks representation from the Middle East, a very inportant political area at the moment, as well as Africa and South America.

I haven´t suggested to remove Britain or France from the Security Council. That would be unrealistic anyway.
I rather like to see an increase of the number of permanent members in the council. All continents ought to be represented: South America (likely Brazil), Africa (South Africa or Nigeria), South Asia (India - after all second populous country and in about 20 years it is going to be the most populous country of the world), the Broader Middle East (Pakistan (or Iran or Iraq) or Egypt).
And of course the number two and three of world economy, Japan and Germany would like to be permanent members.
However: it firstly seems to be impossible to agree on who should become a new permanent member.
And secondly even if they is an agreement about that, that wouldn´t solve the problem of veto rights. To have - lets say - ten permanent members and ten veto powers would make the decision making impossible. One way to solve the problem would be not to give new permanent members the veto right. However: that´s very likely going to be rejected. After all: why should Britain or France has a veto right but India shouldn`t????
Another solution would be that not all permanent members should have a veto right. But that´s not realistic. None permanent member is ready to give it up, especially not those who would most likely loose it - France and Britain.
Because of that it seems to be impossible that the UN is going to be able to reform itself.
One day in the future it may collapse because of that.
Probably there is going to be a better international organisation in the future.

I'm against the Euro, I feel that part of the personallity of a nation is it's currency, I don't want us out of the EU, (Lib-Dem here) but I do want us out of the Euro, I don't see why we need it. The pounds strong and our econermys great. While in other Wu countrys, as far as I know arn't doing to well.

The point of the EU was to create a trade partnership, not a europian super state, which is what polotians seem to be driving for.

Heyy...I totally forgot about this thread.... :P

Next time when I start a thread like this I will only appeal to Asians only. I am in dire need to talk about something local.

Pop in on my Charles R Jenkins thread... It's the most Asia local thing I can see here

(runs off to create more Asia local threads...)

I think England has every right NOT to adopt the Euro. If they hold on to the Pound long enough, it'll be a unique currency. It's already one of the stongest, so it's quite foolish for them to switch.

I have to say I am not against one currency. It makes exchange rates much easier.

But One LANGUAGE?! I shudder to think of all of Europe speaking just ONE language! :eek:

Next we'll have people screaming that Everyone in Europe Bulldoze their historical Landmarks and put up condos!

Then it'll be ONE religion! Then ONE Culture!

I'm scared to think of that! The reason I love Europe is because of its Diversity! In Language, Art, Culture and History.

I refuse to live in a world with no diversity. It's like Everything in a room being Green. It's just not INTERESTING!

I think England has every right NOT to adopt the Euro. If they hold on to the Pound long enough, it'll be a unique currency. It's already one of the stongest, so it's quite foolish for them to switch.

The pound isn't strong. High against the dollar for the moment doesn't equal strong. And all currencies are "unique": I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The Euro, on the other hand, has the potential to be very strong -- perhaps even replacing the US dollar as the world benchmark currency. Now THAT would be interesting to see: oil traded in Euros, not dollars.

Finally, the decision to adopt or decline the Euro isn't up to "England". I can only ask people to please note what others have said earlier: "Britain" and "England" are two different entities. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. California is the most populous US state, but it isn't America. England is the UK's most populous component part, but it's not Britain.

"George W Bush, President of California..."

"The Californian troops stormed the Normandy beaches..."

"The aircraft carrier, the pride of the Californian navy, sailed into the Persian Gulf..."

The pound isn't strong. High against the dollar for the moment doesn't equal strong. And all currencies are "unique": I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The Euro, on the other hand, has the potential to be very strong -- perhaps even replacing the US dollar as the world benchmark currency. Now THAT would be interesting to see: oil traded in Euros, not dollars.

Finally, the decision to adopt or decline the Euro isn't up to "England". I can only ask people to please note what others have said earlier: "Britain" and "England" are two different entities. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. California is the most populous US state, but it isn't America. England is the UK's most populous component part, but it's not Britain.

"George W Bush, President of California..."

"The Californian troops stormed the Normandy beaches..."

"The aircraft carrier, the pride of the Californian navy, sailed into the Persian Gulf..."

I partly do agree with you. However: Having your own national currency has different meanings for differnet countries. For example: Italy had a crap currency. I mean: you had to count in thousands even to do buy a bread. They had high inflation. They got it under controll in the 90s. The prospect of the Euro helped to get more discipline over there. However: giving up their currency didn´t mean much for the Italians. After all it was a very weak currency. The same - however partly to a much lesser degree - can be said for other countries (e.g. Greece, Spain, Portugal), as well as for the new EU members.
But for Germany giving up its own currency was a tough decision. In a referendum Germans would have never approved it. Denmark and Sweden have not adopted the Euro due to the lack of public support. They are also countries with strong currencies. So, the UK is not alone actually. There are three out of 25 members who currently choose not to participate on the currency Union. The 10 new countries however are all looking forward to joining the Euro.

When I say "unique", I meant it in a European context.

As for my wording, I picked "England", since the Pound is more associated with that country than the others.

Now, the Euro does have a chance to be the world currency, however, it's a little weaker than the American dollar still, which is weaker than the Pound. That's how I gauge currency strength.

When I say "unique", I meant it in a European context.

As for my wording, I picked "England", since the Pound is more associated with that country than the others.

Now, the Euro does have a chance to be the world currency, however, it's a little weaker than the American dollar still, which is weaker than the Pound. That's how I gauge currency strength.

Well, if I understand you right I have to say that your system of measuring currency strength is completly silly.
One Jordanian Dinar is worth more than a dollar by the way: it would be nonsense to say that it is a stronger currency.
How could you measure the strength of a currency? Well, you can look to some indicators, for example inflation.
In order to know the global importance of the currency you can look how it is used in the international markets and as a reserve currency.
The Dollar is still number one here.
Other reserve currencies in the past where the Japanese Yen, the German Mark (DM), the Pound, the Swiss Franc, e.g. (well that were the major onces).
The Euro of course has taken over the place of the DM and of other currencies with fusioned to the Euro Zone.
If the UK would join that would of course make the Euro as a currency much stronger.

By the way: 1,24 US-Dollar for 1 Euro. If I take your argument I would need to say that the Euro is "stronger" actually. However: the Pound would be the "strongest" ideed. But that only by using this silly criteria.

As for my wording, I picked "England", since the Pound is more associated with that country than the others.

That'll be because we print our own notes up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_banknotes) :cool:

It's not just the Bank of England that issues pound sterling notes.

That'll be because we print our own notes up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_banknotes) :cool:

It's not just the Bank of England that issues pound sterling notes.

I was working in a shop the first time I saw N. Irish money. I thought it was from a special version of monopoly.

German is pretty irrelevant: only 5% of the working papers of the EU are in German. But since the 1990s English is coming: Why???
Well: the EU is enlarging. The romanic countries who dominated the EU in the past are a minority. In 1995 Sweden, Austria and Finnland joined the EU. That are countries who are more closer to the germanic lanuage English than to French. And the enlargement 2004 with 10 countries can bring a new bosts for the use of the English languae. Almost nobody is speaking French in Eastern Europe. English is the number one foreign language without
any doubt in that region (number two with huge distance by the way is German; Russian is very unpopular and just ranks on third place - but still before French).
English is the language of globalisation, of global business and of modern technology. It is the lingua franca of our time, whether some one likes it or not. I can understand the French intransigence in that respect. But you have to face the facts.
English is the language which most people are able to speak in Europe. It´s not French and not German.
As far as I know most people in Eastern Europe speak better German then English. At least thats what the ones I met told me.

which is why every Europeon country should withdraw from NATO
I agree with this part. NATO is just a US tool to keep their "allies" at a leash.

As far as I know most people in Eastern Europe speak better German then English. At least thats what the ones I met told me.
No: they are more people learning English than German. And those who are learning German are learning English as well. So: English is clearly the number one foreign language, followed by German. But there are a lot people speaking it though, many as good as English, that´s what I know and occasionally hear.

I agree with this part. NATO is just a US tool to keep their "allies" at a leash.
I disagree. NATO is of the utmost importance for the security of Europe and North America.

I disagree. NATO is of the utmost importance for the security of Europe and North America.
it used to be but not really any more i think

it used to be but not really any more i think
Why did you change your opinion then?????