Blair: I'll take Britain into euro by 2007

[T_i_B]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=478791

Tony Blair has set a target of 2007 to take Britain into the euro, and wants the Government to agree to a public pledge to secure membership by that date.

The move suggests the Prime Minister intends to call a referendum soon after the general election, which is expected in May or June next year. Although he has insisted he would serve a full third term if Labour retains power, some ministers expect him to stand down after such a referendum.

The Blair plan will surprise ministers, who thought the issue had been put on hold after the collapse in the Prime Minister's trust ratings because of the Iraq war and the death of the government scientist David Kelly.

[rjbcar27]

1. A lot would have to change for Blair to win a referendum on this.

I swear the government is deliberately trying to piss people off. It seems like a game; let's see how far we can push the electorate before they explode.

Did you hear about that bloody stupid initiative to make it mandatory for all new homes and conversions to have a device that regulates the hot water temperature so it's not too hot? God give me strength. They'll be legislating for kettles to boil at 60deg C next.

And, while I'm on a rant, who's fucking idea was it to give traffic wardens even more power? They'll be able to fine you for a list of offences without you even knowing it. All they'll have to do is right your registration number down, pick the offence and you'll get a £60 fine through the post. Fuck that.

Fuck the Euro too.

I'm pissed off.

[saigon68]

2. Hey Priscilla," take the Poodle out"

"He needs to relieve himself"

Yikes!!!!!

[Spentastic]

3. Nah

You think too much, that's your problem. The average U.K voter couldn't give a flying fuck about very much at all. They'd rather vote for Pop Idol than in elections.

By the way just to make you feel better, those traffic wardens are not accountable to anyone. The services are now contracted out through local authority and there is no way on this earth that you will successfully appeal against a fine they decide to administer. That's the great thing about privatisation, we pay for services but can't then use the democratic process to do anything about them.

As for the water temperature thing. If you make people stupid you'll have to legislate just to keep them alive. Blair is creating a Britain where mediocrity is everything. University education for all. What a brilliant idea, we know that everyone has equal ability. Foundation hospitals so rich hospitals can do what they want whilst the poor ones get royally reamed for no being as good as the rich ones. Sky marshalls, just bend over and take one for the team. The Euro is an ideolgical thing for Blair. He basically wants to get his head on a coin I guess. I'd rather see it on a metaphorical platter.

Fuck Blair.

[Nihil]

4. El Presidente

The water temperature thing is the classic case of putting the cart
before the horse ... and no-one is calling them on it!

It came about because of the number of accidents involving small
children getting scalded by hot bath water. The solution adopted by
the government is to try to legislate the temperature of the water
coming out of the tap. They completely ignored the fact that the
actual safety issue was that small children should NOT be left ALONE
near a bath (hot or cold).

The government (through its cuddly relationship with the media) is
working flat out to ensure that the electorate do not THINK about
anything important. Just concentrate on the mass-produced crap in
the tabloids, the eloquently phrased crap in the broadsheets and
the photogenic crap in 95% of the channels on the moron box.

Old Teflon Tony will probably get this through despite a token amount
of bleating from the Tories and Liberals: his fixers will see to that.

Lower the standard and everyone gets a better mark: that means that
our education policy is working ... doesn't it? Well yes, in as much
as it means that fewer and fewer people are capable of logical thought
or intelligent analysis of the actions of that twat's cronies.

Nihil

[rjbcar27]

5. Grrr, it would be easier if I stopped thinking.

Sometimes I envy the sheep.

After living in the US for 4 years the differences are becoming more and more apparent and I'm beginning to dislike the Britain I love. I'm sick of mediocrity, I'm sick of the Health and Safety twats, I'm sick of criminally wasteful local councils, I'm sick of two-faced politicians too.

I feel powerless to stop it as most people here don't really care for anything other than Eastenders or Coronation Street.

[AP]

12. Expanding university education is one of the greatest things Blair wants..

To do. I couldn't disagree with this more:

"Blair is creating a Britain where mediocrity is everything. University education for all. What a brilliant idea, we know that everyone has equal ability."

This is how you increase middle class wealth. This is how you create a bulwark against fascism.

[mobuto]

14. What's wrong with university education for all?

The GI bill changed America and made the US the only country in the world where university education is available to all. Most will tell you that that was the deciding factor in the enormous economic expansion in the second-half of the 20th century. But beyond that, the results have had tremendous impact in Academe. The overwhelming majority of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences now either work at American universities or are Americans themselves. You go into bookstores anywhere in the Western world - not just in anglophone countries - and book after book after book is by Americans. This isn't simply because of globalization, this is because thanks to universal university education we simply produce more educated people than any other country in the world (with the possible exception of India).

[AP]

15. The US gives a university education to 50% of highschool graduates

(which is the highest rate anywhere in the world) and this STILL isn't enough.

[mobuto]

19. Agreed

And I'll be the first to admit that the United States has some pretty damn serious education problems (albeit mostly on the primary and secondary levels).

But I really don't understand why the Brits are whining about Blair's intention of making university education available to a significant portion of the population. What's the alternative?

[AP]

21. Another brilliant thing about Blair's plan:

nobody pays for college up front. You pay for it in the future, without finance charges, out of income if you get it.

It's going to force the people who benefit the most (employers and graduates) to pay for university education. No more burdening unemployed students and parents before the benefits are reaped. No loans which make banks rich.

[Spentastic]

22. It's about quality and access

How can 50% of the poulation represent the top 10% in terms of ability?

They can't. This measure is about dumbing down at the top as opposed to lifting the middle. University is simply becoming a corporabot production line. Whilst of course any sane individual should support measures to increase both the quality and quantity of education, that's not what is being proposed. It's about cramming more students into a creaking system with a stop gap fees system in order to make the middle classes feel successful. In real terms standards will continue to fall. Why not just call secondary school University? Then you'd get 100% attendance rates.

There are alternatives to ruining University education. Expansion of vocational courses at colleges would be a good start. Providing courses for those who wish to learn more but do not have the ability to thrive in academia.

If variable fees are allowed certain Universities will trade on their exclusivity. This may not discourage working class students as they'll kindly be quota'd in. However some kids in the middle won't be able to go due to cost. That's not the case now.

If AP is right there'll be massive wage hikes and these changes won't matter. I disagree we're creating a generation of debtors.

Why am I unsurprised that you characterise it as whining? Oh I remember I was whining about invading Iraq on the pretense of WMD too.

[AP]

24. Perhaps you've deepy absorbed the class system in a way you don't

appreciate.

How to guarantee quality? Put more resources in it.

Top 10%? What are you talking about? Who said there's a top 10%? There should be a top 90% or a top 100% when it comes to getting eduated.

My view is that if you're only giving 10% a good education, you're denying opportunites to lots of smart, hard working, capable people. Denying education to 90% of your citizens is dumbing down education.

You know when America decided we needed to educate everyone? During the cold war. Republicans finally accepted that we weren't going to find and educate all the math and science geniuses we needed if we were only going to educate the top 10%, which was predominantly people like George W. Bush -- the SONS of wealth and power. Not many match and science geniuses in that demographic.

The sons and daughters of immigrants, of coalminers, school teachers, farmers, etc., produced the people we needed to build up American competitiveness. They also built up economic power, and downwardly and outwardly distributed cultural, economic and political power, which the Republicans have been afraid of ever since.

[Spentastic]

25. You may be right

Or of course you may be wrong.

"Top 10%? What are you talking about? Who said there's a top 10%? There should be a top 90% or a top 100% when it comes to getting eduated"

I hoped you would pick up on that. Are people equal in ability? I'd argue strongly that they are not. We already educate "The sons and daughters of immigrants, of coalminers, school teachers, farmers, etc., " at University after determining their ability at school. The brightest go, the rest do not. Economic help is offered to those who require it. By expanding the number of students attending University you will inevitably reduce the quality of learning. Those at the top will be slowed by those at the bottom and the slide towards mediocrity will accelerate. 90% of the population are not "denied" education, they are unable to cope with the academic rigour required currently at University. You seem happy to lower the acheivement bar, I'm not.

[AP]

26. Education is about opportunity, not ability. And society should be equal..

...in opportunity.

[Spentastic]

28. Fully agreed

So should everybody have the opportunity to demonstrate intellectual brilliance at Uni?Yes

Can 50% of the population do so? No

[AP]

30. 50% is what the US has today and it's not enough.

The US could still stand to committ more resources to education more people, and it will only help America and the economy.

The reason we stop where we do is because entrenched big business look at the tax expenditure as cutting into their guaranteed profits. Also, the more educated people there are, the higher wages there are, and those people also end up starting competitive businesses, which entrenched big business doesn't like either.

More educated people means more total economic, cultural and political power in the world, and it means it's spread broadly and down the the income ladder.

It's only good.

[Spentastic]

34. Are those people

Leaving education and magically voting Repulican then? Shouldn't the left be trashing the right based on your theories?

[AP]

39. The more education you have, the more likely you vote Democratic.

If you don't go to college, you know where you get your political education?

Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

[westman]

75. Opportunity is a process, not a point in time.

At the age of 6, all students have the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and discipline to attain admission to college over the next 12 years. If they don't, then they've squandered the opportunity.

College admission should not be automatic.

[mobuto]

29. Except you don't

I remember more than a little debate about just that from last year in the British press. Do you really believe that the sons and daughters of coal miners have an easy shot at Oxbridge? No. Quality university education is still largely reserved for graduates of public schools. And that's a losing formula.

[Spentastic]

31. Oxbridge

Is always the whip used to flog this horse.

Admissions process to Oxbridge could be dealt with without expanding access.

Will it be? No. Because variable level fees will enable Oxbridge to remain inaccessible.

[AP]

35. Variable level fees?

Blair wants to make you pay AFTER you get your education. Oxford graduates get high paying jobs. Higher fees for Oxford wont limit access for the working class.

And what the working class needs are more, better schools accross the country.

Think: University of Michigan. How many well-payed sons and daughters of UAW members went to that great university and went on to contribute to the economic, cultural and political life of America in fantastic ways, bringing to America the valuable persepective of being the child of the working class? Thousands.

That's what Britain needs.

[Spentastic]

38. Grrr

Working class kids do go to Oxford and Cambridge now. More could go. It's not about money it's about policy.

[AP]

40. I didn't say they didn't.

And I'm also saying that there should be MORE good universities in the UK. There should be UC-Berkeleys and University of Michigans.

After reading Mobuto's post, I want to add that it is the case that not enough working class kids have an opportunity to go to the top schools.

[mobuto]

41. No, relatively few working class kids go to Oxford and Cambridge

but the wider point is this: in the UK there's really not a whole lot beyond Oxbridge. In the US, in addition to Harvard and Yale and Princeton and Stanford and Columbia and Brown and Cornell and Duke and Dartmouth and Amherst and Pomona and Williams and Swarthmore and Wesleyan and Bowdoin and the University of Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins, and a couple dozen more - all of which are at least as good as any university in the UK, you've also got the Universities of Michigan, Virginia, California, Texas, etc. And in the latter group your proverbial son of a coal miner isn't the exception but the norm. And that reflects a profound philosophical difference between our two countries. Because we believe that everybody can benefit from an education, and that moreover it is our duty, as citizens in a democratic society, for us to educate as many as possible.

[Spentastic]

42. Over half are from state schools

That could be more if state schools provided the same quality of education that the private sector does.

Is Blair adressing this? Not really, exams results are up but the exams are easier.

"Because we believe that everybody can benefit from an education, and that moreover it is our duty, as citizens in a democratic society, for us to educate as many as possible."

That's all very well. Do you believe they can all be educated to the same level? If not what is the avenue for the truly talented? In the U.K guess where it traditionally sits.

[mobuto]

43. Well, no

That's all very well. Do you believe they can all be educated to the same level? If not what is the avenue for the truly talented? In the U.K guess where it traditionally sits.

Of course everybody cannot be educated to the same level. But everybody should be allowed to make that decision for themselves, and not simply on the basis of an arbitrary demarkation of the top 10%. O-levels should not decide one's destiny.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. that would be A levels, not O levels

and Oxbridge interviews all applicants as well. Few other British universities do - they go on predicted and achieved A level results, with maybe a little nod to extra-curricular activities.
The justification for the variable fees is not to increase the proportion of working class people going to university (to do that, you'd want to return to the system under the Tories, ironically, when there were no fees for UK students at all), but to get more money into the system without raising taxes.

It's worth pointing out that it's about 40 years since only 10% went to university in the UK; the current figure is about 40%.

What the government paper on access to higher education has to say:
"Around half of the population describe themselves as working in occupations which are classified as skilled (manual), partly skilled or unskilled. Yet, in 2000, just 18 per cent of young people from these backgrounds were benefiting from higher education. While this was an increase of 8 percentage points on the position in 1990, the increase in participation by people from families with professional and non-manual occupations was 11 percentage points (from 37 per cent to 48 per cent).
The principal cause is the big discrepancy in attainment. For example, only 19 per cent of those from manual backgrounds gain two or more A-levels by the age of 18 compared to 43 per cent from non-manual backgrounds."

"Improving prior attainment is the main driver for widening participation to higher education in the long term. The fact that around nine out of ten students who get 2 or more A levels currently enter higher education, and that this progression rate is fairly even over all social classes, demonstrates the importance of prior attainment. We also know that of those who obtain 25 or more UCAS points, 97% from the three higher social classes go on to higher
education and 94% from the three lower social classes. The gap is only one per cent more – 92% as compared to 88% – for those who get between 13 – 24 UCAS points."

[AP]

51. O-Levels and destiny.

In the UK, your destiny is determined before you turn 16. There's no reinventing yourself. It's because if you don't score well, you're not going to be one of those lucky 10% who get to got to university and expand your opportunities. And there's no catching up if you don't go to college unless you get EXTREMELY lucky.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

56. It's about 41-43% that go to Uni (nt)

[AP]

57. In the UK?

In the UK it was 10% when Blair was at Uni. I think it's hasn't cracked 25% today. In the US, I believe I heard last week it was up to 50%.

What's your cite?

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. "Currently, 43 per cent of school-leavers go on to university"

Daily Telegraph 26th Oct 2003

It seems fairly reasonable to base admission to university on whether you have done OK at your immediately preceding academic test, ie A levels (taken around age 18, not 16). Anyone who can't get 2 A levels, or the equivalent qualifications from abroad, is going to struggle if they go to university immediately, or just a year later. The improvements need to happen earlier than university admission.

[AP]

85. So Blair only wants to bump that up 25%?

That's aiming kind of low.

How much has that number gone up since 97, by the way?

I thought I heard Blair say that the number was only 25%...maybe he meant back when he took over in 97?

[lordwhorfin]

78. Denial

All your cites about educational access in the UK have been overturned with evidence, yet you persist in spinning what amont to lies about the educational apparatus in the UK and Ireland.

Look, you don't have the first clue about UK education. I'm an administrator in a program that works with nearly 75 UK partners. It's way, way beyond Oxbridge, and many of the Unis I work with are better than Oxbridge for many students: you will NOT get the kind of tech education at Oxford that you will at Durham. Maybe Cambridge, but not Durham.

Your facts are simply not there.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

83. You say I'm wrong because you work with 75 UK partners?

Why don't you tell me what I'm wrong about, rather than try to merely buttress credibility with biographical references?

In other words, give me your argument. I don't deny that many universities have good programs. But do this: email some of your partners and ask them what their research budgets are. Ask them how much money they get to do research. Then walk down the hall at your second or third tier university and ask those professors what they get in terms of reserach support, course relief, etc. Compare.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

87. Well here's a paper by Charles Clarke

"today around 43 per cent of 18–30 year olds in England enter higher education."

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/highereducation/hestrategy/foreword.shtml

[AP]

32. America decided as much in the 50s.

And the political struggle since the 50s has been about transferrring the wealth the educated create to the wealthiest, and has been over reducing the growing political power of the educated masses. The progressives have lost as much as they've won on those two fronts (accumulating political and economic power) but those are battles I want to fight and win.

So keep educating more and more people. Keep fighting for the downward and outward flow of economic, political and cultural power.

[mobuto]

27. A little anti-Democratic sentiment?

I'm sorry, but each American state has a university system, and almost all of them can provide a world-class education to


How can 50% of the population represent the top 10% in terms of ability?

Well, then this really reflects a philosophical difference. You seem to be adopting the Socratic-Aristotelian notion of there being natural leaders and natural slaves, one of the enduring legacies of the British class system. That's why even today Oxford and Cambridge - indeed all of Britain's first-tier universities - are effectively designed to keep out the graduates of state schools. In this country, we subscribe to a more democratic system, which is dependent upon a quaint Enlightenment faith in the perfectibility of Man. Every American state has a university system that, almost without exception, can provide any student with a world class education. Now not all take advantage of that opportunity - indeed most don't - but the option to available to everybody regardless of background. As a result we see students and professors from all over the world flocking to American universities - and not just to Harvard and Stanford - but to places like the Universities of Oklahoma and Iowa.

Fifty years ago, everybody would have named Oxford and Cambridge as ranking among the lead universities of the world. Today, I don't think too many academics - least of all in Britain - would. I think the past fifty years have shown the superiority of the democratic approach to education over the oligarchic. That's why today the British universities are hemmoraging professors and researchers to the US.

There are alternatives to ruining University education.

I really don't think that's been the result in the United States. Rather the opposite.

of vocational courses at colleges would be a good start. Providing courses for those who wish to learn more but do not have the ability to thrive in academia.


I agree. Vocational education also has to be expanded. But you also need to be able to provide everybody with a liberal education. Because in a society where you trust the people with the power to control the government, you'd better trust them with an education.

I snipped the ad hominem bullshit.

[Spentastic]

33. I'll have to do some reading

That's an interesting argument you've made there.

I'll have to do some reading but I fear that professors do not always move for academic reasons. Perhaps the U.S preference for paying by the wheel barrow has helped.

I bet Cambridge at least would still make top 10.

[AP]

37. Professors do move for academic reasons. Research money is shamefully

low at British Universities (500 bucks would be considered a lot of research money in the UK, ie, ONE conference). Many leave to further their careers at US schools which have far greater resources.

That's not saying that there are not plenty of anecdotes about professors staying in the UK or moving back for family reasons.

Another phenomenon is that many states are defunding public universities in the US, and many private schools are having financial problems, making US universities less appealing for academics in some fields. However, this isn't an excues for the British Universities to keep the bar low. In fact, what I see Blair is doing is sort of going for the jugular -- he knows that the American university system is weakened by Bush, and he wants to build up the British system right now when the have the opportunity to gain a toehold, and then climb rapidly, making it harder for the US system to catch up.

Already, I've heard Krugman talk about going to the UK to teach of the heat got to high in the US. I know stem cell researchers have taken post at UK universities since Bush took the money out of that research in the US>

[AP]

36. Too true.

Blair is trying to help British Universities compete again. I can't believe avowed progressives are trying to stand in the way of this.

If you're going to do some research on this, Spentastic, I suggest you read about Clark Kerr, the recently deceased former Chancellor of the UC system who lost his job when Reagan fired him because he did too good of a job of building up a wealthy, educated, politicall, economically, and culturally powerful middle class by educating the children of the working class and immigrants, which threatened the Republican hegemony.

[lordwhorfin]

79. Nonsense

Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Trinity, King's, SOAS, Sussex, and Manchester could all give top American universities a strong run at undergraduate level. If you want to talk grad programs, there might be more to argue about, as the UK lacks the massive Cold War-inspired military-industrial funding of sci/tech in the US. But in traditional Arts and Letters disicplines, I'm wholly unconvinced. You could probably add Manchester and Leeds, at least in industrial sciences, to my list.

Your post is well-taken for it's philisophical content, but really weak on facts regarding UK/I and its educational institutions.

[Flagg]

6. what's wrong with the euro rjbcar27 ?

[AP]

16. One thing entering the Euro will do is

take the profit banks get just from exchanging money.

If you're a brit who wants to participate in the European market, whether by travelling or buying something on the internet, the banks get a 1.5% cut of your economic activity just because.

[T_i_B]

45. The Euro is a corporate currency

Allow an MEP by the name of Caroline Lucas from your favourite political party to explain this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1042799,00.html

So progressive internationalists must be in favour of the euro then? Well, no, actually. Greens, for example, want a sustainable, democratic economy in both Britain and Europe, driven by social and environmental justice as opposed to the pursuit of ever-increasing economic growth, with the benefits shared widely. Will joining the euro bring us closer to this ideal? - the answer is clearly no.

Joining the euro would make it harder to move towards meeting these goals, for three core reasons: because it represents a shift in power from democratic institutions to the unaccountable European Central Bank (ECB) and its corporate bedfellows; because it erodes member states' ability to propose solutions to local, regional or even national disparities; and because it furthers corporate globalisation and entrenches its goals - increased consumption, trade and profitability. This has and will continue to cause a "race-to-the-bottom" as governments fall over themselves to sacrifice democratic control and public accountability for the sake of competitive advantage.

So it seems European monetary union will not serve the interests of progressive internationalists, equity, social justice or democracy. It won't serve the interests of environmental protection, either, as power transfers to exactly those corporations whose activities environmentalists would like to see regulated further. So whose interests does it serve? A glance at the history of monetary union points to one answer above all: the euro benefits corporate interests, and especially those corporations operating across Europe's borders, rather than those of wider society.

It will contribute to a Europe, in other words, run to the tune of the free market agenda, a rigid monetarist environment with maximum price stability. A Europe where regulation - to protect the environment, human rights or social provision - is frowned upon as an impediment to free trade. A Europe where labour market deregulation will be used to force wage cuts in countries that can no longer use devaluation as a strategy: a Europe where unemployment rises as wages fall, all in the name of competitiveness. These effects are already there, for all the world to see, in Germany and France - unemployment in these two economic "powerhouses" has risen every month since they adopted the euro.

[mobuto]

47. Please explain

I may be slow but I fail to see how Euro implementation hurts the environment, unless the minting of new Euro coins somehow produces heavy-metal biproducts that are released into the water supply. Maybe that's what explains Silvio Berlusconi!

[T_i_B]

49. From the article

"It won't serve the interests of environmental protection, either, as power transfers to exactly those corporations whose activities environmentalists would like to see regulated further.

It will contribute to a Europe, in other words, run to the tune of the free market agenda, a rigid monetarist environment with maximum price stability. A Europe where regulation - to protect the environment, human rights or social provision - is frowned upon"

[AP]

53. What do you think the US is run by? The pound is subservient to the dollar

Do you want to be subservient to the free market agenda perpetrated by the US Congress, the World Bank and IMF? Or to Europe's in which Brits actually have a say?

[mobuto]

55. The idea of Europe being regulation-free

brings a twinkle to my eyes. Have you ever taken a look at the amounts of regulation generated each day by European regulatory bodies? I subscribe to the Official Journal which is published daily in eleven languages, the massive weight of which has earned me the unending hatred of my letter carrier.

Am I mistaken in understanding that the only link you see between the Euro and the environment is a sort of nebulous fear that the same guys who run the former will be around, and if they're around they'll somehow find a way to ruin the latter?

[T_i_B]

67. Have another read of the article

I understand that you may not want to keep re-reading something written by a Green MEP but the article makes the argument that the only ones to benefit from the Euro are big business, who can reap the economies of scale. Thus big business has a bigger influence and can get the regulation it wishes a lot easier. And when you consider how unaccountable it all is (as the article does) then it can be a bit worrying to some of us.

I will re-post the article here for the heck of it anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1042799,00.html

[AP]

71. big business doesn't need the Euro to dominate. They'll dominate anyway.

That's a separate battle. And I don't see the sense in arguing against the euro on the grounds that the inefficiencies that will result will be like a weight arround businesses necks. You'll just have America's version of the corporatocracy win if you do that.

[T_i_B]

77. Yer Wot???

I don't see the sense in arguing against the euro on the grounds that the inefficiencies that will result will be like a weight arround businesses necks.

If you have actually bothered to read what I have posted then you will see that the Caroline Lucas article argues the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are trying to claim here, that the Euro will make big business more efficent at the expence of employment, the enviroment, public serivces, social justice and democracy. I shall post the article again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1042799,00.html

"the euro benefits corporate interests, and especially those corporations operating across Europe's borders, rather than those of wider society."

[AP]

86. I know. I just disagree.

It makes everything everywhere more efficient -- gov't, small business, everything.

When you go abroad, you pay a money exchange fee. When you comparison shop abroad -- when you buy that cheaper car in Holland, or that summer home in the south of France or Spain -- you pay the banks a money change fee. Why do they get a cut for doing nothing?

[T_i_B]

89. It's not that you disagree, it's that you distort.

You made the following claim

I don't see the sense in arguing against the euro on the grounds that the inefficiencies that will result will be like a weight arround businesses necks.

Which is the exact opposite of what Caroline Lucas is arguing. She argues that "the euro benefits corporate interests, and especially those corporations operating across Europe's borders, rather than those of wider society." citeing massive public spending cuts in Portugal and skyrocketing unemployment in France and Germany, whilst also noting that those progressive Swedes voted no to the Euro in their referendum. Why do you think the Swedes voted no?

Whilst I am on the subject, here is some more analysis of the economic issues surrounding the Euro.

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~cmdixon/economics.html

[AP]

90. I believe the progressives (like Anna Lind) in Sweden SUPPORTED the Euro

The Swedes, perhaps, are culturally inclined not to be joiners (like WWII?).

I don't understand what you think I'm distorting. If I read the anti-Euro argument correctly, it's that the efficiencies it creates will make European businesses bigger.

I say two things: (1) if the European economy isn't bigger and better than, oh, say, America's, your destiny will be determined by American, and (2) the democratic defecit, and the battle against corporatocracy will ALWAYS be waged, regardless of whether there's a Euro. Look at Britain. You've hand the pound for years, and you've always been waging the battle against the big corporations and the top 1%.

[aneerkoinos]

91. Hmm

Maybe the British anti-euro crowd is worried that by joining the euro UK would be eventually forced to bring it's labour laws closer to European standards? No more nice 48 weekly working hours etc...

It's outrageous when British Labour leader opposes social democratic issues that many continental moderate right wing parties support...

[AP]

52. Once again, a pound that is, de facto, subservient to the dollar is less

democratic than a Euro controlled by a political mechanism in which the British have more say than they have in the US congress.

[T_i_B]

66. Nonsense

The British government has a damm sight more control over the pound then we would have if monetary policy were to be handed over to the ECB. And it's lot like the ECB have the interests of Britain at heart in the same way that the bank of England and the British government do.

What is good for the EU is not what is good for the whole of the Britain. That is why for the moment I feel that we are better off outside the Euro. Particularly since joining would mean re-entering the ERM and we don't want another ressession like the one we had at the beginning of the 90's do we?

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. The problem with the ERM was fighting the market

the government had to try to stabilise the exchange rate by buying and selling currency; which meant that speculators like Soros knew what moves the government had to make. This put the government at a disadvantage in the game.
If we were in the Euro, the exchange rate would be fixed - speculators couldn't change it whatever they did.

I do agree the ECB will not be looking out for the UK in the way the Bank of England does. But the advantages of stability with our biggest import/export area, and the elimination of losses on exchange, might offset that. I'm still undecided.

[AP]

72. The US is trying to force a global recession today, regardless of Euro.

Joining the Euro and having a strong counterbalance to the US will put Europeans in greater control of their own destiny.

What do you think drove the crappy economies in the early 90s? Psst, thy name is Bush.

[T_i_B]

76. Ah, the counterbalance argument.

The argument that the EU is needed as a counterbalance to US power is made most forcefully by Will Hutton in his book The world we're in. However I do not buy that theory for the simple reason that if America were to have a good leader such as Dean or Clark instead of Bush, a leader who shares common goals with the EU then a counterbalance is not needed. It is noteworthy that the counterbalance argument has sprung uponly in the wake of $hrubya.

Anyway, here is more by Will Hutton as he does write for the UK Observer.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,972948,00.html

[aneerkoinos]

80. Dean, Clark, whoever

will hardly make a better president than Clinton, who was a lousy, short sighted leader from the global point of view. I have no hopes that US will be able to select a second FDR or Carter, not because they don't want to but because it is impossible: sadly, it is now simple fact of life that US cannot willingly change its energy strategy, because of malinvestments in energy intensive infrastructure since 1950's (suburbian life style etc.), hence US will remain a violent threat and source of global instability in the future regardless of "leader", a rogue nation ready to use military to secure energy needs.

Hence, EU and US share very few common goals, especially in enviroment, energy, social justice, global democracy and rule of law, no matter who happens to be the President. Only after US power falls and IMF etc together with it, is there hope that the global civil society can gain some significant victories. Euro is helping to bring US and dollar down and EU is at least the lesser evil, if not a possibility.

[T_i_B]

82. All the same

The argument that the EU is needed to counterbalance the US only really sprang to prominence AFTER Clinton left office.

I cannot see why we should join the Euro (which is forever) to pursue this objective, which is only truly desirable when we have a nutcase in the whitehouse.

[AP]

88. The counterbalance argument always makes sense...

If it's not the US president, it's the congress and the courts and the US dominated IMF, world bank, WTO, etc., you'd have to worry about.

It never doesn't make sense for unions to form and counterbalance the US.

[T_i_B]

46. I'll bite Flagg

With some of the arguments laid out against the Euro on a good intelligent website. Personally I think that Britain should not join at the moment.

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~cmdixon/emu.html

WE HAVE NO CLEAR CUT OBJECTIVE IN JOINING EMU

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~cmdixon/objective.html

EUROPEAN LABOUR IS NOT MOBILE

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~cmdixon/labour.html

The only benefits are lower transaction costs but the costs to individuals are immeasurable.

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~cmdixon/economics.html

EMU WILL LEAD TO TAX RAISING POWERS IN BRUSSELS

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~cmdixon/tax.html

JOINING EMU IS FOREVER

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~cmdixon/forever.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. So you're holding out for the right

to sit in the middle of junctions and screw everyone else up, then? A very principled stand.

[Spentastic]

8. No

He / she are probably holding out for the right not to get ticketed for such an act where it did not in fact take place. Furthermore traffic wardens are pretty much unaccountable to anyone, why should they be granted police powers?

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. They are already controlled by police forces

"Traffic wardens – who are controlled by the police as part of their traffic control but increasingly other security duties - "

http://www.unison.org.uk/policestaff/news_view.asp?did=548

Don't confuse traffic wardens with people who patrol council car parks.

[Spentastic]

10. Have you ever dealt

With one? One of the privatised "wardens?"

They are accountable to whom exactly?

[T_i_B]

48. This sounds like a job for ANGLE GRINDER MAN

I think this guy will be very much in demand by the looks of this thread! :evilgrin: Here's one for rjbcar27 and Spentastic. :-)

http://www.anglegrinderman.co.uk/

This is the Web-Site of Angle-Grinder Man, the world’s first wheel-clamp and speed camera vigilante cum subversive superhero philanthropist entertainer type personage.

A big welcome to all good, decent, law-unabiding citizens. Godspeed to you and your four-wheeled, petrol-driven chariots.

The purpose of my site is two-fold:
Firstly it serves to publicise and promote my free wheel-clamp removal service.

Secondly, it is intended as a forum to consolidate and galvanise public opinion and give voice to the frustrated and disenfranchised silent majority on the issues of wheel-clamping, congestion charging, speed cameras, etc.

[mobuto]

11. No, the Euro is a good thing

It'll actually strengthen Whitehall's ability to control the money supply, it'll leave Britain's economy much more stable, and absent a need to exchange currencies (which is very expensive) it will dramatically increase trade with Europe. The only argument against it is an emotional one -that somehow Britain is losing something - and that simply doesn't cut it when you realize that Britain's economic future is on the line.

[Spentastic]

13. I'm no Europhobe

But Britain will be losing something. It's not just emotional either.

Effective control of local monetary policy. Economic cycles within the Eurozone are not harmonised. Germany and France may be in recession whilst Britain is not. Local control of interest rates etc can be used to control an economy to the benefit of those local to it. The Eurozone is huge, one size does not always fit all.

[mobuto]

17. At this point, Britain has no control

The pound is a small, boutique currency. Which means its easy for currency speculators to manipulate its value. People like George Soros have been able to take people like you to the cleaners, because the Bank of England just isn't anywhere near strong enough to defend the value of the pound.

Economic cycles within the Eurozone are not harmonised. Germany and France may be in recession whilst Britain is not.

And economic cycles within the United States are not harmonized. Right now a large section of North Carolina is booming, while Ohio is in a steep recession. But that doesn't mean Ohio would be better off with its own currency. Rather, the free exchange of dollars between the states allows for regions in recession to more quickly recover. The more efficiently capital can be transferred, the healthier the overall economy.

[AP]

20. agreed.

[Spentastic]

23. Hold up

That was ERM foolery. That scam could have been set up by the speculators.

[AP]

18. Britain doesn't have effective control of monetary policy today. DC has

control over the pound.

Switching to the Euro will move control closer to home, and at least the UK has a democratic say in European monetary policy. You don't have a say in DC.

If Bush weren't president, Britain would be in a golden economic age today. You're doing OK. But you'd be doing much better without Bush. You'd also being doing better with the Euro.

The world is huge. And one-size American monetary policy doesn't fit Europe or Britian.

The Euro means MORE control for Britain.

[T_i_B]

44. No

In actual fact the pound has been free floating since we left the ERM in 1992. That alone has done a heck of a lot to repair the ENOURMOUS damage that was done when we were in the ERM. That whole debacle alone might have persuaded a few of that the best vote in a referendum on the matter would be no. (becuase there is no way on this planet that Blair would win a referendum on the matter as things stand)

And a Europe size monetary policy will fit Britain even less than then if we were to join the Dollar at the moment.

[AP]

58. '92. Those were great days, what with Bush I screwing up world economies.

I don't think anything in your post addresses my contention that the US drives the global economy because there is no effective counterbalance.

Britain has no democratic say in how the US influences the global economy.

There is power in a union.

If the UK joins the Euro, they will make the Euro an effective countermeasure to the Dollar.

The UK has a democratic say in Brussels. It doesn't in DC.

[T_i_B]

68. Er yes

I pointed out that the pound currently is a FREE FLOATING currency. Which you appear not to have twigged onto yet.

If the pound is tied to the dollar as you claim then why does Blair not tell the truth about it? Surely telling the truth would not hurt Blair would it?

[AP]

73. Free floating? It's going up now because Bush wants a soft dollar

to help him politically in manufacturing states in the US.

Get it?

The US controls the world.

A strong Europe, with a single currency is the counterbalance which allows Europe to control its own destiny.

[Dirk39]

60. Hello from Germany,

don't be surprised, but I share your views. This will become a Europe of the corporations, not of the people. And it will be under the leadership of Germany and France - their banks and corporations.
And it's just Germanys third attempt. Remembering the first and the second one, uhhhhh!
And Britain as maybe the poorest of the bigger european countries will not benefit from this - not their people, some of their banks and corporations will. And no other country might have suffered more from neoliberalism a la Blair and Thatcher than Great Britain. Fuck the EU, fuck the Euro. And I don't say this as a nationalist of any kind, I say this as an internationalist.
The less borders are there for the corporations, to hijack one country against the other, the more borders are there for the people.
Greetings from Germany,
Dirk

[AP]

64. Euro or no Euro, Europe is in danger of becoming a corporotocracy

If you want to add costs to commercial transactions just because you're afraid that an economically efficient and competitive Europe would be more oppressive than a weak Europe, it seems to me that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Someone is going to dominate the world. If you prefer a weak Euro and a weak Europe, it will be America who dominates Europe and the world.

If you embrace the Euro and integration, at least you'll have a democratic say in your future. You can fight your battles over corporatocracy in Europe without having the US in control of your destiny.

Furthermore, if you want a system that guarantees profits for banks without them having to do any work, stay out of the Euro and pay a bank 1.5% for every transaction which requires a change of currency.

Look, money is just a unit. It's a mathmatical relationship. Call it all Euros, and you take away the bank's 1.5%. Call it a pound here and a Euro there, and you're guarantying profits for the money changers.

[Dirk39]

65. You're right about the current situation,

and I admit, I'm about to say, if GB doesn't change to the Euro, it means US domination - and GB changing to the Euro could even be a sign that leads to the end of the dollar domination of world economy and a kind of collapse of the US economy. It could just lead to investors turning away from the USA.
But what to do, if we don't want Europe to become a corporotocracy?
Germany really tries to dominate the EU along with France, and our corporations make more profit than ever before, we're export nation Nr. 1 in the world. And we're allready suffering under the same neoliberal agenda as most of the other countries in Europe. Work has to become cheaper, the welfare state is over, we have to compete internationally etc. ppp.
The german banks and corporations must have a plan to use all the money they keep, and I'm 100% sure, it's not for the benefit of the people.
If you're an american, I just have one wish: however you might be occupied with hating Bush: watch Germany carefully!
I take the time to hate Bush, although observing Schroeder and Fischer is a hard job, too:-)
Hi,
Dirk

[AP]

74. That's were the democracy deficit comes into play.

That's a separate issue.

[aneerkoinos]

84. why EU

EU could be and can be an experiment on how to internationalize social agenda and fight the race to the bottom - in that effort common currency is step in the right direction. But that would require that the progressive majority of EU citizens would share that democratic, internationalist, Marxist goal. Instead left is dominated by the

1) third way sell outs who just want to adjust to corporate globalization and not make it serve the people, most notably Blair who opposes any and all common European social policies.

2) nostalgic stalinistic left which is nationalistic, antiglobalist and anti kneejerk everything, marginalized groups of extreme left that has no working programme to change the nature of globalization.

If left could unite under internationalist red-green pro-EU programme, we could change the EU and the direction of globalization. Without taking control EU we can't do that, nor going back to nation state model without EU.

Another world is possible!

[goforit]

54. Is he still gonna be around by 2007???

I don't think so!

[Fovea]

59. I see this as Tony

getting a shot of his own in to Perle and PNACCo over the pre Bush visit shot on getting American companies back on American shores.

I see this a partially a 'screw you' to Bush's NeoCon wing.

[leesa]

61. So how is he going to do this from jail?

[Dirk39]

62. If Marx would still be alive, he might have said somehting like...

...the proletarians of this world have no currency. The thing about the homeland might still be true, anyway.
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[bemildred]

63. So airstrip one will not be part of Oceania?