EMU or no EMU? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  EMU or no EMU?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   EMU or no EMU?

Grosshaus posted 12-19-98 06:13 PM ET
Are you guys for or against EMU? Or furthermore are you looking forward of living in the United States of Europe?
Although it is not commonly stated, we are moving towards a true union. I'm glad that the German politicians have finally admitted that and brought the issue in high level debate.
I am 100% for any kind of unification. I can't see any other way for Europe to be able to compete against US or Japan in trade without a single currency and, in the future, single economy. Also I see EMU as a way for small countries like Finland to finally have some power in world politics. I can't understand people who say we must keep our markka as a sign of independence. We haven't been independent since we joined EU and falling out of the sledge now will severely affect our lives. Just look at the situation in Norway and Sweden, whose people do not support the union. Their currencies are going down, so are their stock markets. And just because of national pride that is a sign of the world our grandfathers lived in and nearly destoyed.
Should there be new members in EU? I believe yes there should. Isolationism has never proofed to be effective in the long run. Perhaps the main reason for people to hate the idea of expanding is Agenda 2000. That is a plan to make EU more efficient and stronger in order to take new members. Whether or not there will be new members, something like A2k must be done to decrease corruption and abuse. So that is no reason to object expanding.
Pasi posted 12-19-98 06:53 PM ET
I vote for EMU. I never understood the currency as a sign of independence, either. I don't mind what's the name of the currency as long as I've got it enough (which has never happened) :-)
Small countries, like Finland, get bigger advantage on free trade.
But I'm not sure if I personally have any reasonable nationalist thoughts for Finland or against E(M)U. Maybe I'm more like an individualist with some (?) solidarism to other humans in general, than a citizen of a(ny) country with artificial borders. I couldn't imagine myself murdering people because they are citizens of another country Well, God knows, I don't.

Anyway, I'm afraid that Europe is too colourful continent to be joined with pure reasoning. It can be done, but it might not last. Maybe the countries just pull to different directions.
Well, fortunately, economic values are not the only ones, so life goes on even after the not-so-impossible collapse of EU.

Pasi
Hoping for the best.
CrackGenius posted 12-19-98 07:28 PM ET
I'm for EMU. It will have good economic effects for the continent. The part about the "loss of national indepedence" I never understood it. Maybe it is because I am a rational liberal internationalist individualist (how all these combine I dunno) but again, no one knows.
However, I'm pretty sure that Britain will not join EMU until at least 2005. If you could just read what the tabloids write about the bureaucrats in Brussels and the new German finance minister Oskar Lafontain, you would agree with me.Then it is the problem that the ECB will not let the UK to print Euro banknotes with the Queen on them and there are many Brits who wouldn't accept that. Furthermore I think it would be bad for the British economy to join the EMU. Our economy is much more similar to that of the US. A monetary union of dollar and the pound would be more sound financially. What about a Pound Dollar or a Dollar Sterling?
CrackGenius
Marquesa posted 12-20-98 12:20 AM ET
We have millions of EMU's here in Australia and we have had no problem with them.
EMU oil will cure practically anything.
Imran Siddiqui posted 12-20-98 12:25 AM ET
Damn Marquesa, you just beat me to making a joke about the title! Oh well, I have no problem with EMUs. They can stay here if they wish!
Imran Siddiqui
Borodino posted 12-20-98 12:28 AM ET
I didn't think a Finn would know about Eastern Michigan Univerisity...
BoomBoom posted 12-20-98 02:14 PM ET
On a more serious note, yeah I'm in favour of the monetary union. But then I've grown up European (with my father working for the European Commission) so I'd be biased anyway. On a slightly different note, we had a discussion about the EU at work here a couple of days ago, and we came to the conclusion that in 50-100 years the EU will encompass not only most of Europe (apart from maybe Albania, or Yugoslavia), but also Russia, and some of the former Soviet republics, and also Northern African countries (morrocco has already applied). 200 years from now it wuld encompass Japan and Korea as well, plus Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and possibly South Africa. We couldn't see the US of A joining though.
Grosshaus posted 12-20-98 05:37 PM ET
Whoa! Russia as a member of EU? Not in my life time nor my childrens. Just take a look at the size of it, then the size of the soon-to-be-members. After that look at the amount of problems with just those countries and the fact that Russia is way behind them in every section.
But all the other countries in Europe, yes it will, or at least should, happen. The sooner the better. And perhaps if Russia collapsed in smaller pieces, the westernmost parts might be able to join. Everything is possible in few hundred years, so I don't want to speculate on the rest of those, but it sure is flattering, Canada, Japan and Australia in EUROPEAN union?
UK uniting with US? I doubt it's in US interests. I'm not a specialist, but I see a union between Canada, US and Mexico more plausible. Well at least an economical one. And I would recommend you to look at the map. 50 km to France, a couple of thousand to US. Now would it be cheaper to ship things to Europe or America. Gee, let me think...
Some people here in Finland also complain about Finnish economy having different cycles than those of Germany and France. Just about the same problem with the Britons I believe. But if having a single currency doesn't reduce those differencies, then what does?
Magnus posted 12-20-98 10:40 PM ET
NOT EMU!!! AND NOT EU EITHER!!! Because that means that money is transfered from Sweden to Europe THAT SUX! We pay far more than we recieve, because europe is poor... So if eg. russia would join eu, then more countries will pay more than they recieve, and thats why many don�t want russia in EU.
I think that it should be great with russia in EU, bcs that means that the other countries will realize our situation... In the future though, when russia beggins to exploit the nature resources there, EU is going to be so rich...
But the EU salaries at $10�000 should be removed!!
Roland posted 12-21-98 05:03 AM ET
Do I really have to say it ? EMU, yes.
Magnus, are you serious about your last post ? I'm not sure...
Sweden is a net contributor if I'm not mistaken, but not that much. About europe being poor, well, the differences aren't that big, sweden is pretty much on the EU average of income, 10 % or so difference.
EU salaries at 10.000$... who ? Some people keep critisising that "eurocrats" earn about twice as much as national civil servants on average, but don't take into account that they are only a central agency (so you'd better compare it with people in ministries) and that selection is very tough.
Russia... not sure, but I don't think russia would even want to be part.
UK... the tabloids are very strange. The whole row about tax harmonisation is due to the thing that it might mean VAT on newspapers... guess who might not like that...
MikeH II posted 12-21-98 07:19 AM ET
That's very cynical Roland. The real reason is that the tabloids know that any attack on Europe will shift papers, especially an attack on the Germans.
Note: I'm just reporting I don't read or agree with the tabloids offensive attitudes.
I remember M.Thatcher (she whos name still causes a chill down my spine) saying, after England lost to Germany in the 1990 World Cup, "They may have beaten us at our national game once but we beat them twice at theirs"
When you have someone like that as ruler for 11 years it does have an affect on national perceptions.
Tapiolan poika posted 12-21-98 07:20 AM ET
Aaah, EMU: Of course all EU countries should join. Also, I think an expansion of the EU would be good (It would (I hope) force us to help the fringe ex-East bloc countries more, and also force the EU to do sth. about the farming subsidies, among other things.).
Grosshaus: As a matter of fact, Swedes are not so massively against the EMU anymore. I saw an article with new statistics this morning in the paper, but I was a bit rushed, so I haven't read it yet.
My theory is that Sweden will join the EMU fairly soon, and that the Social Democrats (i.e. the government, basically) are following the time-honored tradition of slowly moving the population in the desired direction without risking a confrontation on the matter (We had an election recently, and it would have been sheer folly for most of the parties to even put the EMU on the agenda, at the time...). This has been done numerous times before.
It's a very typical Swedish phenomenon: A sort of consensus/conflict-avoidance driven type of politics, which traditionally has worked well for Sweden...
As for WHY we should join the EMU: I think smaller countries are so dependent on external economy that it's hard to have an individual policy on any economic matter, and that's the most important argument for banding together with other countries like this. Of course, the risk one runs is that
a) there are so many countries involved that the union gets unwieldy
b) the policies of the union aren't always those you'd wish to see implemented...
On the other hand, there's at least the possibility to implement sth. not on the agenda of the market barracudas...
Tapiolan poika posted 12-21-98 07:22 AM ET
MikeH: Yeah, and apparently, she likes Pinochet, as well (Can't say I'm surprised...).
Tapiolan poika posted 12-21-98 07:24 AM ET
The scariest thing, to my mind, is that there are so many Swedish politicians who really like her, and what she's done (and would like to implement it here in Sweden, as well...).
Brrrrr!
MikeH II posted 12-21-98 07:27 AM ET
I'm not surprised, they are both haggard old dictators. Just glad that we are a democracy. Otherwise we'd never have got rid of the old battleaxe. (she did go as the result of what amounts to a coup)
Roland posted 12-21-98 07:28 AM ET
MikeH "That's very cynical Roland. The real reason is that the tabloids know that any attack on Europe will shift papers, especially an attack on the Germans."
LOL! Which one is more cynical, my statement or yours ?
The sad part is that the tabloids are producing massive misinformation (put less complicated: lies) about europe and many people believe that crap. But the VAT thing, I'm sure it plays a role, and I'm serious about it. For example: We have two big tabloids in Austria. Paper A has a german company with a big share in it, paper B does not. Now guess what happened: A was in favor of EU accession, B was against with some of the most ridiculous crap I've ever seen. Tabloids are so spineless, that such things direct the line they take (as long as they sell as well).
Brutus posted 12-21-98 07:40 AM ET
United states of Europe is pretty far away,
especially after UK teamed up whith the US
atacking Iraq.
EMU however is a tough question, I'm not so sure it is a good economic project. But as a political project it's very good.
Tolls posted 12-21-98 08:15 AM ET
I'm all for EMU...pity the UK isn't in the first wave.
Brutus posted 12-21-98 08:38 AM ET
I'm also for EMU, I really do hope it will work, but there will be problems.
Each country's economic "freedom" will be very limited inside the union, and it's vital that all the country's budgets keeps balanced, or it could jeopardize the whole project.

To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: EMU or no EMU?
Grosshaus	posted 12-19-98 06:13 PM ET Are you guys for or against EMU? Or furthermore are you looking forward of living in the United States of Europe? Although it is not commonly stated, we are moving towards a true union. I'm glad that the German politicians have finally admitted that and brought the issue in high level debate. I am 100% for any kind of unification. I can't see any other way for Europe to be able to compete against US or Japan in trade without a single currency and, in the future, single economy. Also I see EMU as a way for small countries like Finland to finally have some power in world politics. I can't understand people who say we must keep our markka as a sign of independence. We haven't been independent since we joined EU and falling out of the sledge now will severely affect our lives. Just look at the situation in Norway and Sweden, whose people do not support the union. Their currencies are going down, so are their stock markets. And just because of national pride that is a sign of the world our grandfathers lived in and nearly destoyed. Should there be new members in EU? I believe yes there should. Isolationism has never proofed to be effective in the long run. Perhaps the main reason for people to hate the idea of expanding is Agenda 2000. That is a plan to make EU more efficient and stronger in order to take new members. Whether or not there will be new members, something like A2k must be done to decrease corruption and abuse. So that is no reason to object expanding.
Pasi	posted 12-19-98 06:53 PM ET I vote for EMU. I never understood the currency as a sign of independence, either. I don't mind what's the name of the currency as long as I've got it enough (which has never happened) :-) Small countries, like Finland, get bigger advantage on free trade. But I'm not sure if I personally have any reasonable nationalist thoughts for Finland or against E(M)U. Maybe I'm more like an individualist with some (?) solidarism to other humans in general, than a citizen of a(ny) country with artificial borders. I couldn't imagine myself murdering people because they are citizens of another country Well, God knows, I don't. Anyway, I'm afraid that Europe is too colourful continent to be joined with pure reasoning. It can be done, but it might not last. Maybe the countries just pull to different directions. Well, fortunately, economic values are not the only ones, so life goes on even after the not-so-impossible collapse of EU. Pasi Hoping for the best.
CrackGenius	posted 12-19-98 07:28 PM ET I'm for EMU. It will have good economic effects for the continent. The part about the "loss of national indepedence" I never understood it. Maybe it is because I am a rational liberal internationalist individualist (how all these combine I dunno) but again, no one knows. However, I'm pretty sure that Britain will not join EMU until at least 2005. If you could just read what the tabloids write about the bureaucrats in Brussels and the new German finance minister Oskar Lafontain, you would agree with me.Then it is the problem that the ECB will not let the UK to print Euro banknotes with the Queen on them and there are many Brits who wouldn't accept that. Furthermore I think it would be bad for the British economy to join the EMU. Our economy is much more similar to that of the US. A monetary union of dollar and the pound would be more sound financially. What about a Pound Dollar or a Dollar Sterling? CrackGenius
Marquesa	posted 12-20-98 12:20 AM ET We have millions of EMU's here in Australia and we have had no problem with them. EMU oil will cure practically anything.
Imran Siddiqui	posted 12-20-98 12:25 AM ET Damn Marquesa, you just beat me to making a joke about the title! Oh well, I have no problem with EMUs. They can stay here if they wish! Imran Siddiqui
Borodino	posted 12-20-98 12:28 AM ET I didn't think a Finn would know about Eastern Michigan Univerisity...
BoomBoom	posted 12-20-98 02:14 PM ET On a more serious note, yeah I'm in favour of the monetary union. But then I've grown up European (with my father working for the European Commission) so I'd be biased anyway. On a slightly different note, we had a discussion about the EU at work here a couple of days ago, and we came to the conclusion that in 50-100 years the EU will encompass not only most of Europe (apart from maybe Albania, or Yugoslavia), but also Russia, and some of the former Soviet republics, and also Northern African countries (morrocco has already applied). 200 years from now it wuld encompass Japan and Korea as well, plus Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and possibly South Africa. We couldn't see the US of A joining though.
Grosshaus	posted 12-20-98 05:37 PM ET Whoa! Russia as a member of EU? Not in my life time nor my childrens. Just take a look at the size of it, then the size of the soon-to-be-members. After that look at the amount of problems with just those countries and the fact that Russia is way behind them in every section. But all the other countries in Europe, yes it will, or at least should, happen. The sooner the better. And perhaps if Russia collapsed in smaller pieces, the westernmost parts might be able to join. Everything is possible in few hundred years, so I don't want to speculate on the rest of those, but it sure is flattering, Canada, Japan and Australia in EUROPEAN union? UK uniting with US? I doubt it's in US interests. I'm not a specialist, but I see a union between Canada, US and Mexico more plausible. Well at least an economical one. And I would recommend you to look at the map. 50 km to France, a couple of thousand to US. Now would it be cheaper to ship things to Europe or America. Gee, let me think... Some people here in Finland also complain about Finnish economy having different cycles than those of Germany and France. Just about the same problem with the Britons I believe. But if having a single currency doesn't reduce those differencies, then what does?
Magnus	posted 12-20-98 10:40 PM ET NOT EMU!!! AND NOT EU EITHER!!! Because that means that money is transfered from Sweden to Europe THAT SUX! We pay far more than we recieve, because europe is poor... So if eg. russia would join eu, then more countries will pay more than they recieve, and thats why many don�t want russia in EU. I think that it should be great with russia in EU, bcs that means that the other countries will realize our situation... In the future though, when russia beggins to exploit the nature resources there, EU is going to be so rich... But the EU salaries at $10�000 should be removed!!
Roland	posted 12-21-98 05:03 AM ET Do I really have to say it ? EMU, yes. Magnus, are you serious about your last post ? I'm not sure... Sweden is a net contributor if I'm not mistaken, but not that much. About europe being poor, well, the differences aren't that big, sweden is pretty much on the EU average of income, 10 % or so difference. EU salaries at 10.000$... who ? Some people keep critisising that "eurocrats" earn about twice as much as national civil servants on average, but don't take into account that they are only a central agency (so you'd better compare it with people in ministries) and that selection is very tough. Russia... not sure, but I don't think russia would even want to be part. UK... the tabloids are very strange. The whole row about tax harmonisation is due to the thing that it might mean VAT on newspapers... guess who might not like that...
MikeH II	posted 12-21-98 07:19 AM ET That's very cynical Roland. The real reason is that the tabloids know that any attack on Europe will shift papers, especially an attack on the Germans. Note: I'm just reporting I don't read or agree with the tabloids offensive attitudes. I remember M.Thatcher (she whos name still causes a chill down my spine) saying, after England lost to Germany in the 1990 World Cup, "They may have beaten us at our national game once but we beat them twice at theirs" When you have someone like that as ruler for 11 years it does have an affect on national perceptions.
Tapiolan poika	posted 12-21-98 07:20 AM ET Aaah, EMU: Of course all EU countries should join. Also, I think an expansion of the EU would be good (It would (I hope) force us to help the fringe ex-East bloc countries more, and also force the EU to do sth. about the farming subsidies, among other things.). Grosshaus: As a matter of fact, Swedes are not so massively against the EMU anymore. I saw an article with new statistics this morning in the paper, but I was a bit rushed, so I haven't read it yet. My theory is that Sweden will join the EMU fairly soon, and that the Social Democrats (i.e. the government, basically) are following the time-honored tradition of slowly moving the population in the desired direction without risking a confrontation on the matter (We had an election recently, and it would have been sheer folly for most of the parties to even put the EMU on the agenda, at the time...). This has been done numerous times before. It's a very typical Swedish phenomenon: A sort of consensus/conflict-avoidance driven type of politics, which traditionally has worked well for Sweden... As for WHY we should join the EMU: I think smaller countries are so dependent on external economy that it's hard to have an individual policy on any economic matter, and that's the most important argument for banding together with other countries like this. Of course, the risk one runs is that a) there are so many countries involved that the union gets unwieldy b) the policies of the union aren't always those you'd wish to see implemented... On the other hand, there's at least the possibility to implement sth. not on the agenda of the market barracudas...
Tapiolan poika	posted 12-21-98 07:22 AM ET MikeH: Yeah, and apparently, she likes Pinochet, as well (Can't say I'm surprised...).
Tapiolan poika	posted 12-21-98 07:24 AM ET The scariest thing, to my mind, is that there are so many Swedish politicians who really like her, and what she's done (and would like to implement it here in Sweden, as well...). Brrrrr!
MikeH II	posted 12-21-98 07:27 AM ET I'm not surprised, they are both haggard old dictators. Just glad that we are a democracy. Otherwise we'd never have got rid of the old battleaxe. (she did go as the result of what amounts to a coup)
Roland	posted 12-21-98 07:28 AM ET MikeH "That's very cynical Roland. The real reason is that the tabloids know that any attack on Europe will shift papers, especially an attack on the Germans." LOL! Which one is more cynical, my statement or yours ? The sad part is that the tabloids are producing massive misinformation (put less complicated: lies) about europe and many people believe that crap. But the VAT thing, I'm sure it plays a role, and I'm serious about it. For example: We have two big tabloids in Austria. Paper A has a german company with a big share in it, paper B does not. Now guess what happened: A was in favor of EU accession, B was against with some of the most ridiculous crap I've ever seen. Tabloids are so spineless, that such things direct the line they take (as long as they sell as well).
Brutus	posted 12-21-98 07:40 AM ET United states of Europe is pretty far away, especially after UK teamed up whith the US atacking Iraq. EMU however is a tough question, I'm not so sure it is a good economic project. But as a political project it's very good.
Tolls	posted 12-21-98 08:15 AM ET I'm all for EMU...pity the UK isn't in the first wave.
Brutus	posted 12-21-98 08:38 AM ET I'm also for EMU, I really do hope it will work, but there will be problems. Each country's economic "freedom" will be very limited inside the union, and it's vital that all the country's budgets keeps balanced, or it could jeopardize the whole project.