At present there's no way that a member state could be forced to adopt the Euro. The EU is committed to "ever closer union" however so who knows what might happen in future...
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
At present there's no way that a member state could be forced to adopt the Euro. The EU is committed to "ever closer union" however so who knows what might happen in future...
I did. They said that the EU isn't a communist superstate at all. It's a neo-liberal capitalist superstate apparently.
Good question. A long time ago from what I can tell.
https://www.facebook.com/100003662834496/videos/815593328572754/
Amazing how short Cameron seems to think our collective memories are ......
Amazing how short Cameron seems to think our collective memories are ......
The whole language of the "EU forcing" doesn't reflect the way the EU actually works. It is an international organisation that works by consent, the EU can only "force" nations to do what they've previously agreed to do and even then it's ability to actually force changes is pretty limited.
In any case, the EU cannot force us to adopt the Euro without the agreement of the UK government. In practice, even countries that have nominally agreed to join the Euro but haven't yet - for example, Denmark and Sweden - can't be forced to join the Euro without the support of their governments and we have never agreed to join the Euro and now have a specific agreement that we don't need to so our position is on solid ground if we choose not to join.
Of course, that's not to say we will never join the Euro; it's always possible that a future UK government will decide it is in the UK's interest to join the Euro and take us in. Personally, I think that's extraordinarily unlikely to happen in the next few decades and very unlikely to happen in the next fifty and beyond.
Here's what he said next, that they cut off his speech:
The argument isn’t whether Britain could survive outside the EU; of course it could. The argument is, ‘How are we going to be best off?’ That is the argument that I think we are going to be making together after this successful negotiation. When it comes to the crucial issues, our prosperity, our national security, of course we could try to look after those things outside the EU, but how do we make ourselves more prosperous and more secure? That’s what the argument should be about, and that’s what I will throw myself into once I’ve completed this negotiation.
No-one has suggested that the UK won't survive Brexit. We won't go bankrupt, we won't become some basketcase economy, we won't cease to be a rich, prosperous first world nation with a globally significant economy and military. We will be less prosperous, less rich, less free, and less influential.
This is almost hysterically naive. True you can't force a nation state to agree to something, but you can apply pressure behind closed doors to get them to agree e.g. Tony Blair agreeing to give up a huge chunk of our rebate in return for a vague promise to reform the Common Agricultrual Policy, which never happened. Getting anything done would be impossible in the EU if it weren't possible for the EC to pressure nation states to act against their own interest.
Unverifiable claims are the favoured tool of the stay campaign.
Austria, Finland & Sweden in 1995. Cyprus joined in 2004 and is a borderline contributor by the looks of it.
^^
I thought we were heading for war in Europe, an additional 800k+ unemployed and each family being £4300 worse off ... ? Hardly an endorsement of how the UK will survive regardless.
It is interesting that you say 'less free' and 'less influential' Mr Jack. Our 'influence' in the EU council diminishes when each new member state joins the EU our voting share drops so how is that the case? If anything we are being less and less influential the longer we remain in the EU.
Less free ... What? Less free being an independent nation? Come on
I thought we were heading for war in Europe, an additional 800k+ unemployed and each family being £4300 worse off ... ? Hardly an endorsement of how the UK will survive regardless.
It is interesting that you say 'less free' and 'less influential' Mr Jack. Our 'influence' in the EU council diminishes when each new member state joins the EU our voting share drops so how is that the case? If anything we are being less and less influential the longer we remain in the EU.
Less free ... What? Less free being an independent nation? Come on
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,094
- Location
- Surrey
Re todays BBC headline
"The IFS is non-profit and non-political and receives funding from arrange of sources, including the Economic and Social Research Council, UK Government departments, foundations, the European Union, international organisations, companies and other non-profit organisations."
That's from the IFS website.
ie the IFS is not to be believed.
"The IFS is non-profit and non-political and receives funding from arrange of sources, including the Economic and Social Research Council, UK Government departments, foundations, the European Union, international organisations, companies and other non-profit organisations."
That's from the IFS website.
ie the IFS is not to be believed.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,989
I don't think it is fair, even as an out voter, for the Leave campaign to question IFS impartiality just because they some funding from the EU for some projects.
I would suggest that the IFS like all the mainstream economic groups believes the same central assumptions that the Treasury and Government do. That being that trade will be significantly more difficult and that the pound will drop substantially. After those assumptions are made all forecasts are gloomy. If like Leave campaigners typically do you think Trade will not get substantially more difficult and that the pounds drop is over estimated you economic models are very different. The IFS just reflects the pervading economic groupthink. After all they move in exactly the same circles, speak to exactly the same people and probably worked or studied amongst the same group of people. International economics is probably quite an intellectually incestuous business I'm not surprised they all agree.
The IFS is 11% funded by the EU. That is enough funding to question whether the report is actually impartial or if it is towing the EU/Govt. line of doom and gloom post-BREXIT.
If the Government don't want people to question the validity of data they are supplying the public they should stop using EU-funded organizations to disseminate said information.
Most usually are. It is why politicians fool the public so greatly.
The IFS is entirely independent of government, and even the head of Economists for Britain* says criticisms that they are somehow a propoganda wing of the EU is utter nonsense.
Vote.Leave's campaign to smear every organisation that points out the risk of Brexit is bordering on the hysterical. If you want to accuse one widely respected, independent, organisation of bias then people might respect that; when you start throwing accusations at the host of widely respected, independent, organisations saying the same thing it begins to pong of sour grapes and conspiracy theories.
* Not Economists for Brexit, as I mistakenly wrote in an earlier post.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 2,405
- Location
- Down the road from Diddly Squat Farm
I wouldn't believe anything from the EU funded BBC, whether for or against.
I've criticised the £4300 figure before, it's a complete misrepresentation to take a GDP figure and divide it by the number of households and suggest that gives a reasonable measure of how much individual households would lose. However while these are significant figures that economic modelling suggests the British economy will be worse off by in the case of a Brexit, they're not a threat to UK survival. UK GDP being 6% lower in 2030 will hurt - it'll hurt the British people, it will hurt government finances, it'll hurt our businesses - but it's not a threat to the UK surviving.
It would, if or when that happens, but the area over which that influence is exerted would also expand so it's really not clear that is a net loss of influence. Being part of the EU makes us much more influential over our EU allies than we will be outside of the EU, and helps amplify our influence and voice across the international stage; accordingly, leaving the EU would abandon the influence it grants us over other EU states, remove us from the negotiating table in a great many matters that matter to our country, and reduce our significance on the world stage.
Less free ... What? Less free being an independent nation? Come on
We're already an independent nation; and whether we stay in the EU or not, we will continue to need to deal with, and compromise with, other nations. But when I said 'less free' I was referring to the freedoms that British citizens currently enjoy and Brexit puts at risk: most significantly, the enormous freedom to live and work anywhere in the EU we currently enjoy.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I wouldn't believe anything from the Non-EU funded groups. They are biased against the EU!
There, now we can just discount everything ever published ever and just keep arguing about it. Sorted.
Because it's loads more constructive to criticise the source rather than the information itself.
This project fear and brandishing all the negative economy oulook by several diffrent organisations as rubbish is getting a bit old from leave group.
Maybe they should actually tell us what the economy will look like post exit. Ohh hang on they can't or most likely don't want to.
Maybe they should actually tell us what the economy will look like post exit. Ohh hang on they can't or most likely don't want to.
- Status