Forum menu
Le Big Mac.
Yes, some people who some combination of higher than average salaries, lower than average living costs (rent!), relatively cheap local housing, or who have coupled up unusually early in life. But there's a whole lot of people who don't fit in these boxes, and who cannot see any reasonable path to property ownership.
25y ago within months of starting work I went straight out and bought a smart new 1-bed flat for about 2.5x my reasonable grad salary (would only have been 3x on a very mediocre salary that eg my girlfriend of the time started on - she was below the threshold for paying back student loans at that time). The same flat - now 25y old rather than brand new - is about 6-7x the student loan payback threshold of 22k, and (as I posted above) there are a lot of people not earning that much.
Good job they dont want kids as they need both those incomes just to stay afloat and they cannot live of just one of those salaries.it is possible to buy a house, my 23 year old son and his girlfriend have just done it..
This is just silly its blindingly obvious that is much more costly and therefore more difficult for young people to buy a house than it was for us whether us was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago or 40 years ago and the further back you go the more affordable it was
Where i the tipping point when they can no longer afford properties no idea but certainly in my lifetime. My friend bought a house despite whilst working as a school cleaner - is there anywhere in the UK where this is is still possible?
More saving less moaning I think
Your tough love [ or is it tough shit] Tebbit on your bike silliness is not a solution for anyone who can do maths.
Where i the tipping point when they can no longer afford properties no idea but certainly in my lifetime.
Then we get a little schadenfreude when the "My pension is my property investments" try and cash in - like when they have to hand to over to pay for social care...
The maths makes perfect sense really the supposed value of property is keeping a lot of new people out of it. That can't be sustained.
I do love it when a thread goes all Reggie Perrin....
"I didn't get where I am today......"
[img] 
[/img]
Getting back on topic..... David Davis has once again had it pointed out to him that Theresa's day out in Florence, while all very nice for the British press, hasn't made a blind bit of difference, and Britain hasn't actually made any progress towards solutions to any of the major issues. Therefore, still no trade talks, I'm afraid
And just because you say you want a transitional period, doesn't mean you're going to get one
And time still marches on.....
Concentrate on the important stuff though....
who gets to replace Theresa!
Bald blokes fighting over a comb
No comments regards Macron's speech and his vision for the EU? Some major points that raise some serious questions,(not least how are they going to pay for all this) EU army/shared EU defence budget/EU security training/EU ID cards/ controlling immigration/central asylum centre/a more flexible CAP/ financial transactions tax etc. He wasn't holding back was he. I can't see many countries willing to pay for NATO and also the EU military force, especially as several of them are not paying the agreed NATO costs at the moment. Also, a lot of his vision seems to be inline with some of Junckers previous comments on the EU future. As the UK would probably vote against a lot of those proposals I expect that Brexit would remove the biggest obstacle to these being implemented.
Single European military force? Sensible in principle and presumably would count to NATO so that wouldn’t be an issue.
In practice might be a little more difficult but I could see it being made to work well enough.
Economies of scale should make it cheaper too.
And if say the French had some carrier capable jets they could fly them off the spare aircraft carriers we might have.
In fact most of the things you mention are already done nationally, so rebadging would cost exactly the same, or centralising and replacing might cost less.
Overall? Like it.
Shared Defense and Security? Lots of joint and sharing of information anyway, large numbers already in NATO (budgets are targets not current there Donald 😉 )
EU ID cards - again if your going to have one which most of Europe does better to centralise the logistics and info sharing
Controlling Immigration and Asylum centrally - wonderful may solve a lot of big issues
Flexible CAP and Taxes across Europe - well good stuff..
Anyway Welcome to the thread Reign Man, first visit?
So about time for trade
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181
Theresa May is "bitterly disappointed" the US has opted to impose a tax on the C-Series jet made by Bombardier, one of Northern Ireland's biggest employers.
The PM said the UK would work with Bombardier to protect "vital" jobs after the US Department of Commerce proposed the 220% import tariff.
How do we see a quick trade deal with the US going?
Traitor!
Anyway, Corbyn said something.
No comments regards Macron's speech
THM mentioned it, but I think he got away with it.
How do we see a quick trade deal with the US going?
It'll be fine. The tariffs are only 220%. So our marmalade and tea exports still won't be [i]that[/i] expensive
First on this thread yes, as although I have been following it, I have not felt inclined to post as it descends into basically a playground fight. But, Macron's speech, which echoes some of the views of Juncker and other EU commissioners, deserves some debate, as if Brexit goes ahead, we will be affected and if Brexit doesn't go ahead we will be more affected. In regards the above, although most countries 'do those things already', some don't and it is not done across the EU as a whole. For example, the carrying of your ID card in some EU countries, that the police can stop you and check if they feel inclined. To role this out in a country that has no such requirement, do you not expect this to be met with some resistance? Would citizens not feel their rights are being overridden? And the economies of scale do not fit, this is not a factory that is already tooled up for manufacture, these would be centralised and set up from scratch, people/systems/buildings/infrastructure. Past experience shows that in general, the EU costs for setting up anything new is not cheap, add in the eye watering expense of military equipment and operations, the current budget is going to need to be massively increased.
The EU force would not count towards NATO, this would be a separate force answerable to the EU and deployed where the EU directed. There has already been views about harmonising equipment in an EU force, logistics would dictate that the EU force would have dedicated equipment, be trained on that dedicated equipment, have centralised stores and maintenance facilities and bases and a standard EU training regime.
Centralised immigration and asylum, yep, in theory a good idea, but the past couple of years has shown how woefully inadequate the EU is at handling this as a single entity, with several countries completely disregarding the EU directive/Laws as they see fit? Which has just been met with words and then silence or veiled threats by the EU, but no concrete action to resolve this.
I am not saying Macron's vision is a good or bad thing, as I am fairly neutral, but, the vision that the big players want for the EU, are going to cost massively, both in money and social acceptance, and I am not sure there is the appetite in some of the smaller countries for this major shift.
Or, as he has alluded to reducing the commission to 15 members (with the Franco-German alliance at the centre) would it just be a case of the others being bullied into it by the big 15? Who decides on which country will be cast out to the tier 2 of the EU? How do you tell a country, that they are now a lesser part of the EU but still have to pay into the central budget when the whole project was about each member having an equal say.
It, seems that the future vision of the EU will be a very different EU than it is today, everyone will be equal, but some will be more equal than others. Maybe a central EU with the big 15 who make all the descions, then the others pushed into a revised EEA/customs union type agreement?
How do we see a quick trade deal with the US going?
As the same ruling has been made against Cananda which has extensive free trade arrangements with the US, it wouldn't be relevant anyway.
It is very relevant if you're depending on the US to replace all the trade you're about to lose with the EU, as little Liam says
Boing wasn't even competing with Bombardier on this particular contract. Seems like they're just testing the water of Trumps new protectionist agenda
From their point of view, it couldn't possibly have gone better then?
Something a lot of other 'Merican companies will no doubt have observed.
So shall we revisit mikes question, and you can answer it for us...
How do we see a quick trade deal with the US going?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181 ]From the BBC website:[/url]
[i]The ruling damaged the global aerospace industry and was "frankly not what we would expect of a long-term partner to the UK", said a UK government spokesman[/i]
can you imagine the reaction from the government spokesman, not to mention our hysterical press, if a French or German company had a pulled a stunt like that?
If we're this craven to the US now, WTF will they be like post-Brexit when they've got us over a barrel?
It'll be fine. The tariffs are only 220%.
Well just as long as they don't put that sort of tariff on luxury yachts...
As the same ruling has been made against Cananda which has extensive free trade arrangements with the US, it wouldn't be relevant anyway.
What this demonstrates is how complex international trade can be.
Binners talks sense too.
(for a change)
yep it tells the UK that it's at the mercy of a lot of people now. All of which who are looking to protect and promote, when the UK wants something it will have to give up something.
@reign_man ta for checking in.
I see your concerns, even if I don't share them all.
Is your position "down with all of that" and get out? Do you see upsides to membership? Do you see downsides to leaving?
mefty - Member
No comments regards Macron's speech
THM mentioned it, but I think he got away with it.
😀
For example, the carrying of your ID card in some EU countries, that the police can stop you and check if they feel inclined. To role this out in a country that has no such requirement, do you not expect this to be met with some resistance?
although i am generally in favour of more integration, TBF i am not altogether in favour of mandatory ID cards, but i would likely deal with it. at least, in their favour, you can use them for international travel, outside the EU as well as within, so passports no longer required for many.
Past experience shows that in general, the EU costs for setting up anything new is not cheap,
UK gov procurement being the very model of VFM, of course. 😉
hope you realise I'm not having a pop at you, just trying to answer a couple of points you raise. 😀
BTW a colleague recently returned from sweden. in contrast to many of those who say 'no-one gives a monkey's about UK leaving on the continent, they don't even bring it up', apparently 3 swedes brought it up with him - started the conversation. their views seemed to be ( received second hand ) 'WTF are you doing?' and 'if you lot leave who is going to temper the germans?'
Maybe that's why the Germans aren't bothered 🙂
It seems you're trying to use Macron's speech as a justification for Brexit, Reign Man. None of the things you dislike was or was ever going to be imposed on the UK.
ID cards are useful and cost a fraction of a passport for those who don't wish to leave Europe. There's no obligation to carry it in France.
the last great hope...
[img] 
[/img]
Del-To be fair, when it comes to VFM, no matter if it's the EU/UK/France/Germany etc, large government projects are just seen as a cash cow for large corporations, however, with the EU, any over run or blatant profiteering, can't be used by the opposition as it would in a sovereign country with politicians held to account (which, sadly is becoming a rare occurrence).
Matt-I am not nailing my colours to the mast either way. There is both upsides and downside to being in the EU and being out the EU. For the EU to fully succeed in the visions that some have for it, will require individual national identities to be replaced by an 'EU' identity, then and only then will people be fully integrated in the 'EU state'. But, with Macrons future views on there being 15 main members, does this mark a turning point in the EU's direction? that only two countries are need to push the reforms through (France and Germany) and that there is a need to put some member states into a second tier as there are too many diverse opinions between countries to make the current system unworkable to push ahead reforms and new policies.
Matt-I am not nailing my colours to the mast either way. There is both upsides and downside to being in the EU and being out the EU. For the EU to fully succeed in the visions that some have for it, will require individual national identities to be replaced by an 'EU' identity, then and only then will people be fully integrated in the 'EU state'.
Living in a country bigger than Europe you can retain identity across the place and be more efficient at what you do. I've said it many times before the future has less borders not more.
Edukator-I have put forward no such view or argument, I have not said I dislike or like the points raised in Macron's speech, or whether I am for or against Brexit. Of course there are upsides and also downsides to each proposal, but for member states there will be extra costs and some difficult agreements and a hard sell to their populace to implement some of them.
Regards ID cards in France, isn't it the law to carry an official form of identification?
Also, it seems that the view from Macron is that the current setup needs to change.
How would carrying an ID card make you more efficient at what you do?
And that pic above is truly disturbing
How would carrying an ID card make you more efficient at what you do?
Slightly out of context but having a single ID system for Europe would make it more efficient, having one team working on immigration and asylum rather than 24 would be better
will require individual national identities to be replaced by an 'EU' identity, then and only then will people be fully integrated in the 'EU state'
I don't take that as a given, personally I can hold both thoughts in my head at the same time.
Though if obliged to choose between locked in the UK with Faragist Brits, or rubbing along with my French, German, Italian & Irish mates, I'd chose the latter. The personal bonds are way stronger than any nationality based one.
I do think this issue decided a lot of leave voters though, hang on a leaver forum and you will soon see a lot of "I am British not European", as if they are exclusive.
On the "EU Army", it wouldn't necessarily represent a big scaling up of footprint; there's no appetite (or money) for that. You'd find that it would mean the establishment of some HQ formations, and lots of exercises together for them. The force elements would be the same units declared to NATO and their own sovereign states, the same physical boss/bits of kit.
If you were a cynic, you might think that the UK's impending departure would allow the dominance of an EU force by the continent's other big military power, hence M Macron pushing it! Buys him a bit more clout on that Franco-German axis....
Oh - is France militarily stronger than Germany so pulls some rank (if you excuse the analogy)?
The underlying message seems to be that the EU will be changing (regardless of Brexit), theres views and visions of how it should be in the future which will not sit well with some member states, especially if they get pushed out of the main 15 'inner circle', that would hurt some national pride, so that wouldn't be a smooth transition. It will be interesting to see if other leaders start coming out with the same vision as Macron.
Yes, France is stronger, the German military was more like a self defence force and were restricted on the type of operations they can be involved in abroad. Although the second largest in Europe after France, their combat/operational experience is quite limited.
will require individual national identities to be replaced by an 'EU' identity, then and only then will people be fully integrated in the 'EU state'
Would not expect British people to have a problem with this. After all we are comfortable with being both say Scottish and British. Well.. unless you're English, when the two terms are basically synonymous. Guess that's why Scotland voted remain...
The irony of the French putting forward military co-operation is delicious.
Good to see Mols is still posting from cloud cuckoo land.
mefty - Member
The irony of the French putting forward military co-operation is delicious
Nope. You lost me. My day to be dim it seems.
Given the EU has its origins in tying France and German together to make war between them nigh in impossible, starting to tie the militaries together seems a natural step.
The French after years of grumbling left the military command structure of NATO in 1966, they didn't like the fact that two countries formed an axis of power (US and UK.) De Gaulle expelled all non French NATO troops from France - the US Secretary of State asked whether that included "the bodies of American soldiers in France's cemeteries?".
They rejoined under Sarkozy, some might suggest a parallel exists.
Fair point.
Though the point about the function of the EU is probably equally relevant.
The French after years of grumbling left the military command structure of NATO in 1966, they didn't like the fact that two countries formed an axis of power (US and UK.) De Gaulle expelled all non French NATO troops from France - the US Secretary of State asked whether that included "the bodies of American soldiers in France's cemeteries?".
De Gaulle was a colossal tit and did all he could to hamper US/UK ops during WW2 despite the fall of France...and then had the cheek to insist French troops were the first to march in Paris despite it being liberated by the UK/US/Aus/NZ/Can etc...he was the epitome of arrogance.
(thread drift but he really was a bellend)
Deviant - never met the man so I won’t comment.
De Gaulle was a colossal tit and did all he could to hamper US/UK ops during WW2 despite the fall of France.
it was almost like he thought they were out to "get him" !
On 21 April 1943, de Gaulle was scheduled to fly in a Wellington bomber to Scotland to inspect the Free French Navy. On take-off, the bomber's tail dropped, and the plane nearly crashed into the airfield's embankment. Only the skill of the pilot saved them. On inspection, it was found that aeroplane's separator rod had been sabotaged, using acid.[156][157] Britain's MI6 investigated the incident, but no one was ever apprehended. De Gaulle blamed the Western Allies, and later told colleagues that he no longer had confidence in them
yay american protectionism !
but May held his tiny hand and everything
[img] 
[/img]
a nice glimpse into our post brexit future
as for EU army
conisdering the epic costs of the millitary and things liek the nuclear deterrant then it makes a lot of sense, especially as Americ seems to be turning inwards, if an EU army makes member states less likely to take unilateral decisions regarding war I wholeheratedly agree, the legacy of the wests military escapades in the middle eats, south east asia should be warning enough to make war less.
Of course thats something Putin definitely doesnt want, hence his support for Brexit, lepenn, wilders, the AFD etc
also think an EU wide FBI is long overdue
Klunk - Member
De Gaulle was a colossal tit and did all he could to hamper US/UK ops during WW2 despite the fall of France.
it was almost like he thought they were out to "get him" !On 21 April 1943, de Gaulle was scheduled to fly in a Wellington bomber to Scotland to inspect the Free French Navy. On take-off, the bomber's tail dropped, and the plane nearly crashed into the airfield's embankment. Only the skill of the pilot saved them. On inspection, it was found that aeroplane's separator rod had been sabotaged, using acid.[156][157] Britain's MI6 investigated the incident, but no one was ever apprehended. De Gaulle blamed the Western Allies, and later told colleagues that he no longer had confidence in them
Surely that's proof that [i]somebody[/i] was out to get him, not necessarily the Western Allies. Seems an unnecessarily complicated sabotage too.
Agree De Gaulle was a throbber. Nice airport though. I always imagine what Harold MacMillan's thoughts must have been when De Gaulle blocked Britain joining the embryonic EU, less than 20 years after the liberation of France! Probably not printable.
Regards ID cards in France, isn't it the law to carry an official form of identification?
No it isn't.
Loving the De Gaulle comments. That you hate him on here is proof of just how much good he did for France.
facts that counter their opinions/facts would be proof
One might as well say Trump is doing good in the US as so many of his allies and their people dislike him. Its an equally absurd non sequitur.
De Gaulle was probably the only one who could have reunited France at that time.
However that doesn't excuse the fact his actions were entirely self serving and to some extent counter productive to getting the nazis out of France.
However what this has to do with the eu referendum i don't know
It was De gaulle who opted for evacuating anything of use to the UK rather than a futile last stand in France. You call it "surrender monkeys", I'll call it good strategy.
Under the occupation Gaulle gave a face and a voice to the resistance/maquis in France and represented them in London. The British/US command had little confidence in the capacities of the resistance and De Gaulle had to both fight for and earn confidence.
As the Normandy landings approached, the allies were bombing anything that moved or might move. Marshalling yards were the favourite but they weren't adverse to bombing anything that might get in the way and to hell with civilian losses/collatoral damage. De Gaulle persuaded the allies that parts of France could be liberated from within (this the allies did want to hear as it would cut allied cassualties). The resistance recieved support, fulfilled their role and the allied advance benefitted. Everyone won, the allies lost less men and France lost less lives and infrastructure.
I worked with a resistance member who was a memeber of the Royan maquis, he was very bitter because they had correctly informed the allies of the location of German targets (non in the town) but the allies laid waste to the port and most of the town while the Germans watched from afar.
Anyhow the man himself says it better than me:
Ah, nice one. A lot of the history books have missed De Gaulle being the one to evacuate anything of use back to the UK, rather than leave it behind. They only seem to cover Dunkirk, where all the equipment had to be left behind and only personnel were evacuated. Nice of the general to post the good stuff back.
Edukator - agreed to all of that, however pushing the 2ieme db across the American front to ensure they liberated Paris also slowed up the advance, it was clear that he mainly sought to ensure he was in power once liberation came.
No question the allies made a lot of mistakes, mainly due to a level of ineptitude (monty) and arrogance (patton).
This isn't too sound purely de Gaulle bashing as let's face it churchill also spent a large part of the war attempting to subvert the war effort to ensuring the re-instatement of the British empire. And Roosevelt was deluded in thinking he could control or influence stalin.
It's in French but babble/google will make it readable, Reign_Man
L'appel du général de Gaulle a très fortement mobilisé la population, de nombreux petits bateaux de pêche et de plaisance embarquèrent, plus que de raison, les candidats au départ depuis les nombreux ports de la péninsule bretonne. Le plus connu reste celui, le 26 juin 1940, des 127 hommes de l'Ile de Sein agés de 14 à 54 ans. Environ 250 personnes partirent de Camaret le 19 juin. De nombreux jeunes des écoles de la Marine rejoignirent également les ports britanniques comme les 80 élèves de l'Ecole de la Marine Marchande de Paimpol à bord du "Manou" ainsi que ceux de l'école du Havre, comme le départ de Douarnenez de 108 élèves de l'Ecole de pilotage de l'air installée à Morlaix.
Isn't this all getting a little off track from the general EU in/out future direction good/bad topic?
Yes, but it wasn't me who derailled it. Read back for slagging off of one of Europe's visionaries who was at the heart of the EU project and perhaps knew that the Brits would be nothing but trouble until having got their cake (the one they were eating too) they would spit it at the baker. 😛
considering the opt outs we've managed to blag over the years, really not worried that we'd be trapped in some kind of terrifying unaccountable EU superstate
It seems to me that inside we had a lot of influence
outside we are reliant on the benevolence of Trump !
£9bn pa, one of the biggest economies in the world, a worldwide diplomatic network, one of only 2 full-spectrum militaries = "nothing but trouble". Ta 😉
[quoteIt seems to me that inside we had a lot of influence
outside we are reliant on the benevolence of Trump !]
I'd suggest we'll be more exposed to the cold winds of the international system. As a declining western power with unfavourable demographics and a debt problem, not the best strategy I think!
It's only even about access and terms kimbers. We have never been tuned in to "the project". Most sensible people, saw the benefits of the single market and the folly of the common currency. We did have a great compromise. The fools - yes fools - lie on either side of what we had.
Sad that.
I’ll put my hand up and say I didn’t see the folly of the common currency, and in principle still don’t - but I do see now that without proper union it won’t work.
So the options in the longer term are give up the euro (hope not I’ve got stacks of it lying around 😉 ) or full financial, monetary and probably political union.
So don’t be surprised to see EU leaders talking about more union.
airtragic...spot on, he was so pro French it bordered on xenophobia toward other countries...doing his job though I suppose, all leaders should prioritise their own county first.
knew that the Brits would be nothing but trouble
Yeah, those nasty Brits continuing to fight Hitler and liberating France (again)...perhaps the British should've surrendered like France?...I think that's what really irked De Gualle, that it took a coalition of Anglo countries to do the job his army and countriy couldn't do.
Read 'between silk and cyanide'...it's a book from a coder who worked for SOE during the war and Dr Gaulle wanted and needed British help but was a complete child when it came to the military...he would insist on using a secret supposedly unbreakable French code that the author broke in one afternoon and turned out to be just a copycat version of an old British code...when this was pointed out to the Free French they arrogantly didn't believe it and continued to use a code that was easily broken thus endangering agent's lives...on top of that De Gaulle insisted on messages from his agents going directly to him and not to be read by the UK or the US...if you're relying on other countries to liberate your own then you share information relevant to that...needless to say the allies thought he was a loose cannon and intercepted his messages anyway and were easily able to decipher the 'unbreakable' French code.
Don't beat yourself up IGM - they fooled lots of people
The € cannot and doesn't not work by design. But to make it fail less of course you need full fiscal and political union. Just one drawback, the people don't want it!!
So macron is right in once respect, deluded in the other. Totally
So Trump threatening trade war at absolutely wrong time for Brexit negotiations, Davis team already desperate for a transition, this is surely a gift to Barnier.
.
Fallons threat to strike back via defense contracts, gonna just rile trump further?
Some people feel the need to over simplify everyone else's identity, don't they. Integration does not require homogenous identities, embrace the diversity. We'll be back to "cricket tests" again very soon, I fear. Multiple allegiances and layered identities are normal.will require individual national identities to be replaced by an 'EU' identity, then and only then will people be fully integrated in the 'EU state'
Monetary union is not very good at embracing diversity. Slight problem there
Really? The locals here where I am in Scotland seem to have a different mixing pot of identities to 'back home'.
teamhurtmore - Member
Monetary union is not very good at embracing diversity. Slight problem there
Ironic from a man who lives in a monetary union of 4 countries that get along happily 😉
This is just phase 1 of the dismantling of "the special relationship".
Ironic from a man who lives in a monetary union of 4 countries that get along happily
Nail .... head albeit unintentionally.
The area referred to satisfies the criteria for a common currency area with the benefits that this can bring (and the challenges). The area under question here doesn't hence the appalling consequences (with some benefits admittedly)
This is basic stuff - in fact the only logically consistent position is to be pro the union of the UK while rejecting the absurd notion of full union across Europe.
Nothing else makes sense in theory or in practice
kimbers - Member
teamhurtmore - Member
Monetary union is not very good at embracing diversity. Slight problem there
Ironic from a man who lives in a monetary union of 4 countries that get along happily
I’m putting words in THM’s mouth but I think he’d suggest that the UK has monetary, fiscal and political union albeit with some degree of freedom in the latter two.
That would generally be held to work.
It’s monetary union without the other two that’s a problem.
^^^^ Wot ee sez - except the bit about being against full European union - that might work after a short adjustment period ^^^^
Disclaimer - Remember I’m an engineer 😉
PS - not beating myself up, THM. Just humble enough to admit mistakes but far too arrogant to worry about it 😉
More than that IGM. I have posted this here many times but there are certain criteria that must be satisfied for a common currency to work. Then and only then you also need to have full monetary, fiscal and political union for this to have a chance of succeeding.
The EZ fails on both counts which is why it failed st birth.
Remember the Maastricht sticking plaster that everyone, yes everyone, ignored? They were a crass attempt to paper over the cracks in the design. The result was merely inevitable......and painful
It's difficult to appraise the UK government position, because they don't have a position. It's just wishy washy sound bites and no potatoes.
Like an expensive meal at a crap restaurant.
Then and only then you also need to have full monetary, fiscal and political union for this to have a chance of succeeding.
Indeed more and deeper union is required, and as Britain shows that needn't come at the cost of national identity
THM - indeed you posted on the criteria and I think even linked to some definitions of the criteria - but they were a bit vague and hand wavy so I decided to disregard them. I’m a bit like that.
If it wasn’t you that linked to them my apologies. I get a little cynical in my old age.
In fact did we not argue over whether cities and counties going bankrupt in the States called the dollar zone into question? Respectfully of course
Indeed more and deeper union is required, and as Britain shows that needn't come at the cost of national identity
Or maybe Yugoslavia
Some people feel the need to over simplify everyone else's identity, don't they. Integration does not require homogenous identities, embrace the diversity. We'll be back to "cricket tests" again very soon, I fear. Multiple allegiances and layered
Monetary union is not very good at embracing diversity. Slight problem there
Oooo… it's condescension time.This is basic stuff
A single currency does not require a single identity and rejection of all others. Nor does a union of countries, or a single country. Identity doesn't have to be singular and simplified.
Ask a Texan, who considers themselves half Irish American half Mexican, if the Dollar is likely to fail, or the USA break apart, because of their compound indenty.
More than that IGM. I have posted this here many times but there are certain criteria that must be satisfied for a common currency to work. Then and only then you also need to have full monetary, fiscal and political union for this to have a chance of succeeding.The EZ fails on both counts which is why it failed st birth.
It's worth remembering that these "criteria" are at the end of the day just judgements.
It's not proven scientific fact we're talking about, just some rough inferences drawn from other past experiments, and heavily coloured by various kinds of prejudice.
You can't test it out in a lab.
but they were a bit vague and hand wavy so I decided to disregard them. I’m a bit like that.
Your decision, your loss. They are not vague at all but failing to understand them leads to thid misunderstanding posted by oldandpatsit above. Or red herrings such as this
.
A single currency does not require a single identity and rejection of all others. Nor does a union of countries, or a single country. Identity doesn't have to be singular and simplified.
But never mind.. you can lead a horse to water 😉
So, the euro has "failed", but the dollar, pound, ruble and rupee are (presumably) fine. (Maybe some of these have also failed too. If so, please clarify)
Can we have some clarity on what it means to "fail" please? What is the objective measure?
Directly contributing to an economic and social crisis - is that enough for starters?