Euros: EU Constitution - YES or NO ?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Hortlund
It would benefit Sweden to be a €-nation because our economy is already tied to the euro-economy and we would have larger influence-abilities on our own economy if we were part of  €...how odd that might sound.

Since we are so very export-dependent, currency fluctuations could hit many of our industries very hard. Not the big ones naturally, because they secure all export deals to other currencies, but medium/small ones.

OK, but instead of being a €-currency nation, your government still has the option to vary the valuation of your currency - the krone - and can vary interest rates. Wouldn't you prefer this level of control over your economy to rest with Stockholm than with Brussels?

[Replicant]

NO

And that comes from someone who'll be working in Germany from October onwards for 3 years!

[Seeker]

While still living in England (and still subject to English media) I was mainly anti-euro.

Then I left England for Europe and thought "this is cool, this is; why don't they run England this way?"....

The fact is; having seen the bloody mess London has made of Britain (who ever is the administration of the day); it's hard to argue that London has an indisputable right to govern.

On the other hand: I find it ironic that the more centralised administration becomes; the more stupid little indepency movements arise. After all; in an non-Euro world; just how viable would places such as the Basque land or Wales be?

My own long term hope for Europe is a return to the Greek city/state system; meaningfull local government inside a larger cohesive framework. Local rule; held acountable to local people; not some guy living isolated in a guarded house being chauffered to work; remote from the society he created. Politicians should be forced to live the lives they force on others.

[ravells]

Would be bloody good, Seeker.

But it would never happen, more's the pity.

Ravs

[Dowding]

Well, Seeker if you think London is wasteful, inefficient and corrupt you must have the rose tinted spectacles when it comes to the EU and specifically the Commission.

London has an indisputable right NOT to be governed by foreign politicians who would be in jail if they were British, operating in the British parliamentary democracy.

[_Schadenfreude_]

spot the little englander...lol

[Dowding]

Little englander, common sense...either way...

[Momus--]

British politics is just as corrupt Dowding, but here, as in the USA, the corruption is institutionalised

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by beet1e
OK, but instead of being a €-currency nation, your government still has the option to vary the valuation of your currency - the krone - and can vary interest rates. Wouldn't you prefer this level of control over your economy to rest with Stockholm than with Brussels?

That option is an illusion. The minute our government would try to keep a fixed crown-value, foreigh speculations against said crown-value would create havoc on our economy like in the early 90s. Simple fact is that the crown-value must flow simply because we are a small economy and any attempt to fix our crown-value would be crushed like a bug by outside speculation.

Same with interest rates, the minute our national bank would try to change the interest rates independently of the current €- rates, our economy would take a nosedive.

Simple fact is that we have less control over our economy now when we are outside € than we would have if we were a part of €.

And no, for me it is completely irrelevant whether the control over the interest rates or the crown value is decided in Stockholm or Brussels, simply because politicians should not (and does not) have any control over these instruments. Political control over the economy = communism= disaster for the economy. And even Sweden, with its long tradition of social democracy has realized this had has an independent national bank operating outside political control.

[Dowding]

I don't doubt there is corruption in British politics - but why lose sovereignty to an even more corrupt and bureacratic institution? The Commission is democratically unaccountable, and contains politicians who failed in their own countries. 'Gravy train' doesn't do the place justice.

[beet1e]

Interesting viewpoint, Hortlund. I will try to digest what you said.

When I said about your government being able to control the currency/interest rate, I should have said your banking institution. For example, a lot of interest rate decisions here are not made by govt., but by the Bank of England.

This discussion reminds me of something that happened way back in 1967. Labour had come to power in 1964 under PM Harold Wilson. As with all Labour governments, financial crisis was followed by economic breakdown. The British currency had to be devalued by 14.3%.

Immediately after devaluation, Spain devalued their currency (then the peseta) by 14.6%. They did this because they realised that they were heavily dependent on British tourism. Air travel was just catching on, and cheap package holidays with guaranteed sunshine were becoming very popular. (Sure beats a week in Blackpool watching it piss down with rain) If Spain had not devalued, the increased cost of those package holidays would have risen sharply. The point I'm making here is that Spain was able to retrieve the situation because it had control over the value of its own currency, and interest rates. How would they cope with a similar situation today in such a crisis having surrendered control of their currency and interest rates?

It's too long ago now to draw any parallels with a situation from modern times, but it's something I think back to whenever there's talk of surrendering control of our own finances. I've managed to dig out the PM's speech that day (Real Audio format) from the BBC archives. In it, the 1966 Dock Strike is mentioned as being one of the factors contributing to Britain's economic crisis. The instigator of that strike was a 28 year old gentleman by the name of John Prescott. That same guy is now Deputy Prime Minister, a position from which he has been able to continue his career of wrecking Britain which he began in 1966.

Harold Wilson and the "pound in your pocket" speech of 1967. The Brits might find this amusing to listen to after all these years. I always thought Harold was saying "biddy-biddy-buur" whatever he was saying.