If the UK left the EU what would the consequences be?

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by FREKI

^maybe I would - or maybe I think that nations such as Denmark, Korea and Canada is capable of making deals and agreements without having to ask other nations..

Good luck making a deal with India then "without asking other nations" then...
I'm sure your high rankings in GDP, education, healthcare and pensionsystem will somehow enable you to make a beneficial deal that totally lives up to your terms and that you will not be "overrun".

[FREKI]

^we'll manage one way or the other and if not it won't be of your concern so everybody wins

[SA-R]

Originally Posted by FREKI

^I completely agree - get the plans down on paper for the future and ask "yes or no" - this way there wouldn't be any surprises, no sneaking stuff in and no uncertainty...

Well, I know how things work in Denmark. I was lived there some time. Well, Freki, Danish problem is not EU. Danish problem is that 5 or so millions Danes have more than $600 billions international debt.

Guys you have to understand, Danish population is something like one and half Hamburg or something like that. You was wrote about Greenland. Main problem of Greenland is Denmark, not EU. How I saw things with Greenland is that they are not happy with Denmark, so you are sure they was leave because they don't like EU or they don't like Denmark?

Anywhere, I think EU countries like UK or Denmark, or any countries which are current members of the EU, and it same time they are able to be members of the Euro-zone, but they are not, they need to have final and very simple with time deadline question, yes or no.

Also Euro-zone countries have to made new EU base and new EU rules, so new EU need to be create from Euro-zone with totally new rules, especially trade rules.

So those who will choose answer yes, OK, those who will choose no like answer, will not have a chance for example next 30 years to get that question and they need to leave new EU.

Today we have two main concepts which fights over and over again about direction where EU need to go. I think it is time for reform, because mainly Euro-zone countries lose a huge amount of the money just to support Euro or some countries which are not on the same development level like others.

About Fehmarn Bridge, what is purpose of that extra large and extra expensive bridge? I don't get it, what is wrong with current road connection?

Why should EU finance that bridge, why should rest of the Denmark, for example Jylland, finance also that very expensive project? I don't see any economic, road or what ever reason for that when already exist nice highway connection via Jylland, Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg?

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by SA-R

Well, I know how things work in Denmark. I was lived there some time. Well, Freki, Danish problem is not EU. Danish problem is that 5 or so millions Danes have more than $600 billions international debt.

Ehmm...

First of all our international debt was/is ( 2008 figure ) 195 billion DKK = $36 billion and further more we have more money borrowed out than in giving us a surplus debt wise.. just as our trade balance has a surplus and our State economy has ( 2009 had the second highest surplus on record )

So not exactly a problem... ( the national state debt is about a months avergage pay per capita = 35k DKK )

Originally Posted by SA-R

Guys you have to understand, Danish population is something like one and half Hamburg or something like that. You was wrote about Greenland. Main problem of Greenland is Denmark, not EU. How I saw things with Greenland is that they are not happy with Denmark, so you are sure they was leave because they don't like EU or they don't like Denmark?

Not sure what your mean? Greenland like every other part of the kingdom is free to leave at any time they want to - there nothing holding that back, but as it's Danes living there they logcially don't want to, but if they would they could - personally I would love seeing my island go independant

Originally Posted by SA-R

Anywhere, I think EU countries like UK or Denmark, or any countries which are current members of the EU, and it same time they are able to be members of the Euro-zone, but they are not, they need to have final and very simple with time deadline question, yes or no.

I completely agree!

In fact we should have had that back when both the UK and Denmark said no.. ( Denmark did so twice ) but another time wouldn't hurt and if it could be the final time that would be great...

It's not like we would be asked 3 times to leave had we chosen to join - nope - in the EU a no is temperary and a yes is perminant!

Originally Posted by SA-R

Also Euro-zone countries have to made new EU base and new EU rules, so new EU need to be create from Euro-zone with totally new rules, especially trade rules.

Great idea - make a new EU from the Eurocountries and keep the trade union stuff from the rest - then we all get what we want

Originally Posted by SA-R

So those who will choose answer yes, OK, those who will choose no like answer, will not have a chance for example next 30 years to get that question and they need to leave new EU.

Sounds awesome!

Originally Posted by SA-R

About Fehmarn Bridge, what is purpose of that extra large and extra expensive bridge? I don't get it, what is wrong with current road connection?

There is no current road condition - that is the problem.. so currently ferries are used to connect Eastern Denmark ( Zealand and Lolland ) with Germany at two connections...

Originally Posted by SA-R

Why should EU finance that bridge

If they can finance the ifrastructure in other nations why not send a little money up north?

They really don't have much reason, but it helped get the Germans on board so you won't hear me complaining

Originally Posted by SA-R

why should rest of the Denmark, for example Jylland, finance also that very expensive project?

As I have already stated neither Denmark nor Germany is financing it - they are borrowing money to the company owning the bridge that will then over time pay it back as user fees roll in.. the two nations is simply borrowing the funds needed to get it build to the company and will be repaid later..

This is how we got our other two record size bridges build and this is how this and future bridges ( kattegat hopefully ) will be build..

[SA-R]

Originally Posted by FREKI

Ehmm...

First of all our international debt was/is ( 2008 figure ) 195 billion DKK = $36 billion and further more we have more money borrowed out than in giving us a surplus debt wise.. just as our trade balance has a surplus and our State economy has ( 2009 had the second highest surplus on record )

So not exactly a problem... ( the national state debt is about a months avergage pay per capita = 35k DKK )

I don't know, or your national bank hide this, or CIA World Fact Book lie a big one.

According to CIA WFB, Denmark external debt is $607.4 billion (30 June 2009 est.). It is not hard to divide that with 5,5 million population of Denmark.

So if that is true, what I don't have a reason to believe it is not, Denmark is in bigger trouble than UK, which also have huge external debt.

Originally Posted by FREKI

Not sure what your mean? Greenland like every other part of the kingdom is free to leave at any time they want to - there nothing holding that back, but as it's Danes living there they logically don't want to, but if they would they could - personally I would love seeing my island go independant

If things are like that, than I don't see reason for "fight" with Canada about Hans Island, Denmark don't care and don't have interest for all that. Anywhere when we see what are Greenland's strategic resources - gold, diamonds, natural gas, and oil, plus claims on Antarctic, we know how things will going there if Greenland ask for independence from Denmark.

Originally Posted by FREKI

I completely agree!

In fact we should have had that back when both the UK and Denmark said no.. ( Denmark did so twice ) but another time wouldn't hurt and if it could be the final time that would be great...

It's not like we would be asked 3 times to leave had we chosen to join - nope - in the EU a no is temporary and a yes is perminant!
Great idea - make a new EU from the Eurocountries and keep the trade union stuff from the rest - then we all get what we want

Sounds awesome!

Problem in Denmark about the EU membership is the same like in any other EU western country. Elite's and big businesses have huge interests in EU, small average people cries because of that, and they don't have too much. So if average Danes want to go out of EU, they have to talk with theirs elite, because they are those who again and again try to push for that, not Germany, France, Italy or someone else. But main EU idea is to get one common market where all parts will be on one common developed level. So if you guys are mostly out of that, so average German, French, Italian and etc via EUR value will pay most for that, why should anybody else offer to Denmark open door forever, so later they will be able to use higher consumers spending in for example Romania so Bang Olufsen will sell a lot of theirs HI-FI or TVs in Romania? That is trick, today all EU countries are not on the same level, so most developed countries via EU budget pays for development of those countries which need help. But EU budget is nothing compering what the most developed countries of the Euro-zone pays via common currency value to those countries which need help in current moment. Of course all idea is to help each other, so today one country need a help, so others help her, tomorrow perhaps some other country will need help, so they will get from others help. Politic of the countries like Denmark is that they will join only if they have bigger interest in that and when they choose? It is kind of the selfish. Nice example is Iceland.

Anywhere, from my experience in Denmark, Denmark's industry depend a lot from German industry.

Originally Posted by FREKI

There is no current road condition - that is the problem.. so currently ferries are used to connect Eastern Denmark ( Zealand and Lolland ) with Germany at two connections...

If they can finance the ifrastructure in other nations why not send a little money up north?

They really don't have much reason, but it helped get the Germans on board so you won't hear me complaining

As I have already stated neither Denmark nor Germany is financing it - they are borrowing money to the company owning the bridge that will then over time pay it back as user fees roll in.. the two nations is simply borrowing the funds needed to get it build to the company and will be repaid later..

This is how we got our other two record size bridges build and this is how this and future bridges ( kattegat hopefully ) will be build..

Lolland population is 68,224 (2006). So you want to build 19 km bridge which will cost more than 5 billion EUR for population of the 68,224? BTW, Lolland island have bridge connection with Zealand island, and Zealand island have bridge connection with Fyn island, and island Fyn have bridge connect with half-island Jylland, and Jylland have connection with Hamburg, so from Sweden to Hamburg already exist highway connection so only goal here is to get 45 minutes shorter road connection Copenhagen-Hamburg?

I mean, OK if road-bridge connection already don't exist from Sweden via Copenhagen, Odense, Kolding, Flensburg to Hamburg, but that highway connection exist, so that new huge bridge project is very bad investment. Anywhere traffic on that road via Fyn and Jylland to the Hamburg is something like 10% of the traffic from Hamburg to South, so even that route don't have heavy traffic, so driving will be OK without that bridge.

OK, I see you are from Copenhagen, I said earlier, I was in Denmark, so I know how things function there, I suppose something what you don't know is that people on Fyn and Jylland are pretty pissed that they work hard and Copenhagen and Zealand gets most out of that. I suppose this project will deepen that opinion, because this project will work totally against interest of the Fyn and Jylland and only for elite in Copehagen, so they will be able to shorten driving from Copenhagen to Hamburg for 45 minutes. OK, if Denmark want to finance that, that is Danish problem, but for EU, this project cannot be good investment.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by SA-R

I don't know, or your national bank hide this, or CIA World Fact Book lie a big one.

I wouldn't put too much trust in them as their site certainly isn't what it used to be..

And you should also keep in mind that there are many kinds of debt, if everything is counted ( home purchases, cars, banking, companies etc etc and not just the state as I mentioned in my last post ) I'm sure the figure will be high, but these are fields with lots of collateral.. and you should keep in mind that money changes hands both ways and in Denmark's case our foreign debt is virtually non existant but we're still making good money on the money others have borrowed from us..

A little reading:

"Denmark's foreign debt eradicated
15. jan. 2010 14.08 English
Denmark's foreign debt had been eradicated and converted into DKK 42 billion worth of assets by the end of the third quarter of 2009"
http://www.dr.dk/Templates/NewsArtic...ACHEHINT=Guest

The final surplus for 2009 ended up being 62,7 billion DKK - http://finans.tv2.dk/nyheder/article.php?id=27724112

Originally Posted by SA-R

So if that is true, what I don't have a reason to believe it is not, Denmark is in bigger trouble than UK, which also have huge external debt.

Bullsh*t mate - have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ccount_balance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt

Originally Posted by SA-R

If things are like that, than I don't see reason for "fight" with Canada about Hans Island, Denmark don't care and don't have interest for all that.

What are you talking about?

Hans Ø was delt with many years ago after Canada backed down from their claim after Denmark wanted to take the case to the International Court - so that island is as it always have been Danish.. there is no "fight"

Originally Posted by SA-R

Anywhere when we see what are Greenland's strategic resources - gold, diamonds, natural gas, and oil, plus claims on Antarctic, we know how things will going there if Greenland ask for independence from Denmark.

Greenland doesn't have any resources that trough current ways are economically sound to extract..

Originally Posted by SA-R

Lolland population is 68,224 (2006). So you want to build 19 km bridge which will cost more than 5 billion EUR for population of the 68,224?

No the bridge is to save the traffic comming down from Copenhagen and the other Scandinavian nations time and money when going down south - the location of Lolland was used because it's the closest eastern island to Germany

Originally Posted by SA-R

BTW, Lolland island have bridge connection with Zealand island, and Zealand island have bridge connection with Fyn island, and island Fyn have bridge connect with half-island Jylland, and Jylland have connection with Hamburg, so from Sweden to Hamburg already exist highway connection so only goal here is to get 45 minutes shorter road connection Copenhagen-Hamburg?

There are more to Europe than Hamburg - it will save much time and many KM's for transport to Eastern and Southern Europe and shorten the connection between Copenhagen and Berlin etc..

Same reason why you will see a Helsingborg-Helsingør connection soon..

Originally Posted by SA-R

OK, I see you are from Copenhagen, I said earlier, I was in Denmark, so I know how things function there, I suppose something what you don't know is that people on Fyn and Jylland are pretty pissed that they work hard and Copenhagen and Zealand gets most out of that

So now the Femern bridge located on a far away island is only beneficial to Copenhagen and that is pissing off people? Well good for them!

Originally Posted by SA-R

I suppose this project will deepen that opinion, because this project will work totally against interest of the Fyn and Jylland and only for elite in Copehagen, so they will be able to shorten driving from Copenhagen to Hamburg for 45 minutes. OK, if Denmark want to finance that, that is Danish problem, but for EU, this project cannot be good investment.

Maybe you should think a bit about it mate, rail freight is outfaced and bridges as well as roads only have limited capacity when it comes to transportation so in a modern world the Great Belt Bridge will not be able to handle all the traffic that will come, hence they are building viable alternative routes to ease traffic trough the nation and spend time and money..

The ferries operating the Femern straight current ( carries both trains, freight and passengers have had high enough numbers to warrent a bridge in the eyes of the experts.. if you want to question that by all means, but I see no point..

The interest of Funen and Jutland is the same as everywhere else in the nation - to have traffic flowing and freight arriving on time and for that you need infrastructure.. and that means investments are needed

Whether the EU benefits I couldn't care less about, but it opening up rapid freight to and from Sweden and Norway along with passenger rail I think it will...

[SA-R]

Hmm according to your Wikipedia link, external debt of the Denmark was $492,6 billion (6/30/2007), so I even more believe that CIA WFB data about Danish (5,5 million population) external debt was later $607 billion. Anywhere that is bigger external debt than external debt of the Russia which have 200 million and etc population. Also reason why is not good to look only GDP per capita and create judgment about quality of the life in some country is exactly good example on Danish case, because it is well known that higher external debt will rise GDP per capita, and all that will create fake (stats) much higher standard of the living than actually is.

My point here is that with enorm external debt, Denmark is economically very vulnerable country, plus it is small country without natural resources like for example Norway, so if they don't have safe net in EU or Euro-zone, things are able to change over night, just like in Iceland, but Iceland debt is smaller few times than Danish external debt.

About Hans Island, I don't know about that much, but Canadian defense minister said something different. I will not take a side on this, but dispute about that island near Greenland is real.

Hans Island is Canadian!
"Our position has always been clear: It's Canada."
-Bill Graham, Canadian Defense Minister, July 26, 2005

About that bridge, no mater where is start point on the North, how I know, that direction don't have big number of the vehicles for investment that size, so usually EU don't finance infrastructure projects which don't have enough number of the vehicles on construction route. So now, and in near future, I don't think that investment will pay yourself. Simple as that. Also that project is not just one 19 km long bridge, it is plus two more bridge, one 1 km long, other 3 km long, plus construction of the 35 km highway in Germany. So that are problems with that bridge. If that investment will pay yourself in reasonable time for that kind of the investment, private banks will finance that project 100%. So in that case, no need for EU credits.

About Helsingborg-Helsingør bridge, I also don't believe in that. Too costly for construction when you have 50 km South or something like that already one bridge which connect Denmark and Sweden, and which was huge investment.

So I don't believe any of those project will be U/C soon.

[FREKI]

Okay - have a nice night!

[MilkDrinker]

Originally Posted by FREKI

Then Turkey, Greece and Romania could inherit it while France and Germany merge and Belgium was split between the Netherlands and France

Turkey and Greece? Or Turkey and Romania? That will never happen... not during our lives! A trade union yes... but more than that no...


If the UK will leave the EU it will be bad for them and irrelevant for the rest of us! UK is a problem state in the EU anyway...

[andysnape]

Originally Posted by FerrariEnzo

When is Europe going to merge into a super state ala the US but with more home rule clauses in a new constitution? That is the real question.

This is why we Brits were so opposed to the Euro. We knew the only realistic chance of success for it was to go down a full fiscal and political union. Supporters kept referring to the success of the USA while saying Europe didn't need to go down the same route. It was completely ridiculous.

[Lear]

Who cares if Britain wants to leave ?

Nobody, the Eurozone/EU will secure its way with the islanders in a case confrontation. If Britain can´t be pulled along, then they get kicked out and are destined to get ultimately sidelined, being an isolated midsize country without partners.

The real question is, does the Eurozone has the guts to ask the Brits to leave
in order to become a more organized entity...

[nito]

Originally Posted by Lear

The real question is, does the Eurozone has the guts to ask the Brits to leave
in order to become a more organized entity...

Based on the whole mismanagement of the € and the resulting fallout; nope.

It is also farcical to suggest that kicking Britain out would somehow make the EU more organised! The UK is the second largest net contributor to the EU after Germany; the subsequent loss of the UK to the EU would result in a €57bn (based on net benefit) hole in the EU budget, at a time when the EU is consistently seeking budget increases at a time when the majority of countries across the continent are enforcing stringent austerity measures. The Greeks and Spanish aren't in a state to shoulder the difference, so it would come back to Germany; Christ that doesn't even factor in UK contributions to the EU/€ bailout fund. Sometimes people I really do wonder if people actually have a brain to think things through!


In my personal opinion, I think we ought to stay in the EU, but there needs to be significant structural reform; CAP and Strasbourg ought to be culled. The gravy train needs to be terminated.

In the long-term the only way that the EU can work is if it is integrated in a joined up fashion (the failure of the € illustrates what happens when you don't), and it's view is outward looking, not focused on crop farmers.

[Lear]

Originally Posted by nito

Based on the whole mismanagement .

I guess you mean the collective Eurozone actions needed in order to answer the anti euro speculation deriving from London based casino banks.

The eurozone and its currency represents the second largest reserve currency on the globe. Sure there are minor parts like greece who need assistence. The political institutions need adjustments too in order to stabilize the budgets and economies.

I say, kick out the UK as soon as possible put on customs and close all borders for the Brits. Citing Sarkozy: Britain, shut the fuck up !

[nito]

Originally Posted by Lear

I guess you mean the collective Eurozone actions needed in order to answer the anti euro speculation deriving from London based casino banks.

The eurozone and its currency represents the second largest reserve currency on the globe. Sure there are minor parts like greece who need assistence. The political institutions need adjustments too in order to stabilize the budgets and economies.

I say, kick out the UK as soon as possible put on customs and close all borders for the Brits. Citing Sarkozy: Britain, shut the fuck up !

Ah yes, the collective ills afflicting Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc... has nothing to do with low productivity, indebtedness, tax evasion, corruption, decades of economic mismanagement and critically inept politicians, but London! Although how could that be – I thought London had no influence and was merely a city on an island archipelago!

Fortunately Germany isn’t governed by book-burning, goose-stepping, economically illiterate clowns such as yourself; otherwise you’d be in an even bigger hole.

[brannelford]

From where I sit, it appears Freki was right about the Euro.

Personally, I think Denmark and Sweden were right to avoid using the Euro. As smaller nations, Denmark and Sweden would run the risk of Germany/France (Merkozy) shoving its political and economic agenda down their throats.

This is the problem Greece is facing. It's an economic question. Greece needs to implement austerity; but the irony is that implementing austerity is going to restrict GDP growth, thereby putting Greece into a recession, and thereby further limiting its ability to pay its debt. Previously, Greece could have dealt with this by lowering its drachma, but the drachma no longer exists, and because Germany is economically stronger, the Euro cannot be lowered just to suit Greece's economic problem. To add insult to injury, Trichet goes and raises the interest rates, further exacerbating Greece's problems.

In a proper federation (or economic union), the stronger provinces help pay for the weaker ones, in order to help the union/federation maintain its optimal GDP. In Canada, we call this Transfer Payments, whereby funds from provinces with a stronger GDP will go to help support weaker regions. While this is no doubt controversial in Canada, most tend to agree that its the price one needs to pay in order to help maintain economic cohesion in the federation, and to prevent one smaller region from becoming an economic basket case.

Getting back to Europe, Germany seems to have chosen to completely ignore this principle of "Transfer Payments", as from what the press is reporting here, Germany appears unwilling to help Greece, even though it is demanding harsher austerity programs. Something tells me that Germany is more interested in protecting its banks (or those Germans who loaned money to the Greeks) than it is in protecting the broader unity of the European Union. Let's not forget that Germany's GDP has benefitted from having a lower Euro, yet it seems unwilling to help other regions in the Euro. Were Germany still using the deutschmark, its currency value would undoubtedly be higher, and German exports would be correspondingly lower. Despite this, Germany has reverted back to nationalistic interests, as I mention above, judging from its apparent unwillingness to lend more support to Greece.

Therein lies the problem, and this is the reason why Denmark and the UK are probably right to stay away from the Euro.

When push comes to shove, Europe will retreat back to its nationalistic interests, and those who are the biggest fish in the pond will get to call the shots. Freki is right when he suggests that Denmark would be under pressure to streamline its social programs (i.e reduce benefits) if a situation ever came about whereby Denmark was beholden to the Euro (as Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece have now become).

Years ago, a few economists were calling for an "Amero" similar to the Euro to cover our NAFTA trading zone between the US, Canada and Mexico. For a while, with all the Euro hype, I was worried this idea might gain traction. Thankfully, with the utter & complete mess of the Eurozone over the past few years, any talk of an Amero has long since passed.

Freki is right. A free-trade zone can work just fine with multiple currencies. NAFTA is an example. At the same time, by having its own currency, Canada is able to control its own interest rate, thereby retaining the ability to establish an independent monetary policy that is beneficial to Canada; and also to maintain many of the social programs which may be under pressure were Canada ever to find itself under one currency effectively controlled from Washington (Just as the Euro is now effectively controlled from Frankfurt).

[Lear]

Originally Posted by brannelford

Getting back to Europe, Germany seems to have chosen to completely ignore this principle of "Transfer Payments"

You are obviously a victim of Anti-EU propaganda from Anglo media.

Germany is the founder and the lynchpin of all transfer mechanisms in the EU.
It maintains the largest budget in order to ensure solidarity and support of weaker regions/countries.

Germany does not only uphold a transfer mechanism within its own federal system but has been an advocate to maintain this system even in EU structures.

There is only one EU member famous for not contributing equally to cohesion (transfer) funds, that is namely the UK. Key word: UK rebate.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Lear

You are obviously a victim of Anti-EU propaganda from Anglo media.

Germany is the founder and the lynchpin of all transfer mechanisms in the EU.
It maintains the largest budget in order to ensure solidarity and support of weaker regions/countries.

Germany does not only uphold a transfer mechanism within its own federal system but has been an advocate to maintain this system even in EU structures.

There is only one EU member famous for not contributing equally to cohesion (transfer) funds, that is namely the UK. Key word: UK rebate.

Not contributing equally? Even with the rebate, the UK is the largest net provider to the EU after Germany; if there wasn’t a rebate then there would be the potential for the UK to be a higher net provider than Germany!

Never mind the point that Germany receives a rebate of its own! Although in all honesty, I feel sorry for the Dutch, Danes and Swedes who make obscene per capita net contributions towards the EU.

If you want to point fingers about ‘contributions’ perhaps you ought to point them at countries dependent on CAP, other wastage programmes, and the likes of France, Italy, Spain, etc...


Ultimately the EU dismissing the UK is never going to occur - it would be suicide resulting in either overnight programme cuts and/or emergency budget contributions from net provider EU members such as Germany.

[Miu]

Originally Posted by brannelford

In a proper federation (or economic union), the stronger provinces help pay for the weaker ones, in order to help the union/federation maintain its optimal GDP. In Canada, we call this Transfer Payments, whereby funds from provinces with a stronger GDP will go to help support weaker regions. While this is no doubt controversial in Canada, most tend to agree that its the price one needs to pay in order to help maintain economic cohesion in the federation, and to prevent one smaller region from becoming an economic basket case.

The EU already has a transfer system, in which Germany has always been the largest contributor. This has absolutely nothing to do with the debt crisis though.

The EFSF is far larger in scale than the transfer payments between Canadian provinces (or German states, for that matter). Germany's €211 billion guarantee for the EFSF amounts to 82% of its federal budget.

Originally Posted by brannelford

Getting back to Europe, Germany seems to have chosen to completely ignore this principle of "Transfer Payments", as from what the press is reporting here, Germany appears unwilling to help Greece, even though it is demanding harsher austerity programs.

This entire debt crisis is the result of transfer payments if you will. Ever since the introduction of the euro, northern Europe has provided southern Europe with cheap credit, which allowed the Med countries to pile up enormous amounts of debt and equally impressive trade deficits. What the EU needs is a major readjustment, not more of the same. Crises always reveal imbalances and, unless governments actively try to maintain these imablances, force actors to make the necessary adjustments. That is a basic tenet of capitalism. It seems that Germany and its handful of allies are the only ones sticking to that principle though.

Originally Posted by brannelford

Something tells me that Germany is more interested in protecting its banks (or those Germans who loaned money to the Greeks) than it is in protecting the broader unity of the European Union.

Germany is advocating the exact opposite: it wants lenders to bear the losses for their failed investments in southern Europe, which is why it has been fighting for a significant haircut on Greek debt against opposition from the ECB and France ever since the beginning of the crisis

Originally Posted by brannelford

Let's not forget that Germany's GDP has benefitted from having a lower Euro, yet it seems unwilling to help other regions in the Euro.

Germany's GDP has not benefitted from the Euro. The 2000s were the worst decade in German post-war history in terms of GDP growth. It was countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland whose debt-fuelled economies boomed, not Germany.

Originally Posted by brannelford

Were Germany still using the deutschmark, its currency value would undoubtedly be higher, and German exports would be correspondingly lower.

Yes, which is just what Germany needs. Lower exports would result in more money being spent domestically and less money draining off to other countries in the form of dubious loans. Unfortunately for southern Europe, that would also mean that Germany would no longer be able to subsidize their current account deficits or be able to shoulder their bailouts.

Originally Posted by brannelford

Despite this, Germany has reverted back to nationalistic interests, as I mention above, judging from its apparent unwillingness to lend more support to Greece.

Germany and the rest of Europe have already lent far too much financial support to Greece.
It is widely agreed that Greece is a lost cause. Greece cannot be saved, no matter how many more billions of euros EU politicians pump into that country. It is an illusion that there is any way for Greece to get back on its feet without years of painful readjustments, with or without the euro.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by nito

What the heck is that joke? You forgot to point out the source of that thing. That's of a BBC article of 2005 when the UK's rebate was discussed and the British were defending it as hard as they could. Unfortunately I couldn't find the official contributions by country for the 1995-2003 period, just be aware that the numbers mentioned on that graph came from the British defending their piece of meat. Need I say more? Anyway...
Here is Wikipedia's article about estimates for the 2007-2013 budget... Damn wow, that's a huge, dramatic change compared to those numbers you gave us for 1995-2003, don't you think? It's pretty strange. I'm wondering how it could change so much in just a very few years. Any answer, anyone? Now for 2007-2013, although France is likely the main beneficiary of the CAP (common agricultural policy), our net benefit is superior by only € 6 billion to that of the UK whose agriculture is yet a complete failure, it's like abandoned and under-developed compared to France's agricultural business. So indeed the CAP is still the major EU expense whereas the UK doesn't benefit by it, simply because the British chose to give up agriculture (as well as industry) for their financial activities, that's the only reason why you call the CAP a waste. Everyone will appreciate how smart and skillful that British strategy is. Who's gonna feed them at the end of the day?

[nito]

Originally Posted by mousquet

What the heck is that joke? You forgot to point out the source of that thing. That's of a BBC article of 2005 when the UK's rebate was discussed and the British were defending it as hard as they could. Unfortunately I couldn't find the official contributions by country for the 1995-2003 period, just be aware that the numbers mentioned on that graph came from the British defending their piece of meat. Need I say more? Anyway...
Here is Wikipedia's article about estimates for the 2007-2013 budget... Damn wow, that's a huge, dramatic change compared to those numbers you gave us for 1995-2003, don't you think? It's pretty strange. I'm wondering how it could change so much in just a very few years. Any answer, anyone? Now for 2007-2013, although France is likely the main beneficiary of the CAP (common agricultural policy), our net benefit is superior by only € 6 billion to that of the UK whose agriculture is yet a complete failure, it's like abandoned and under-developed compared to France's agricultural business. So indeed the CAP is still the major EU expense whereas the UK doesn't benefit by it, simply because the British chose to give up agriculture (as well as industry) for their financial activities, that's the only reason why you call the CAP a waste. Everyone will appreciate how smart and skillful that British strategy is. Who's gonna feed them at the end of the day?

I already referred to the €57bn figure in post #52 of this thread. The difference is most likely down to the erosion of France's dominance of CAP (now at around 21% - http://cap2020.ieep.eu/member-states/france) what with the ascension of the former Soviet states into the EU.

France's net contribution to the EU is only €6bn less than the UK over the period because of the rebate. If the rebate was abolished there would not only be a significant rise in UK net contributions (last year alone the rebate was worth £3.3bn to the UK), but also a significant decline in French net contributions (i.e. towards the rebate). Nevermind the issue that France by most acknowledged measures has a larger population and economy than the UK.

Yet you proceed to have the audacity to not only go on a rant about the rebate and lower net contributions, but refer to other countries having under-developed/abandoned agricultural economies. You appear to be completely unaware of the irony in France being the biggest recipient of CAP monies.

The CAP and other agricultural-orientated EU funds have been and continue to be a major fraud that as Europeans, we all ought to be ashamed of. Not only are many large corporate entities (e.g. Nestle, Tate & Lyle, etc...) and wealthy land owners major CAP or EU agricultural payment recipients, but the system has lead to a consistent inefficient use of land and capital, and the creation of milk lakes and butter mountains due to scandalous waste. Meanwhile CAP policies not only artificially inflate food prices, but the system impoverishes developing economy agricultural sectors.

How on earth can we as a union justify spending close to 50% of our budget on agricultural, rural and fishing related subsidies. The top two recipients of CAP and other agricultural moneys in France consist of sugar producers: Saint Louis Sucre and Tereos, while the fourth biggest recipient is a retail bank: Credit Agricole! It’s a sham and should be culled.