Not to join the teuro currency is a very wise decision.

Japheth
Posted on 2003-09-15 08:08:44 by japheth
Thank you japeth :grin:

I voted yes though. I understand that you are against the euro, but why? Is everyting much more expensive with the teuro? It would be great to hear the pros and cons from a person who acctually live with it, not just from our politicans.
Posted on 2003-09-15 08:15:18 by Delight
why would having the euro be bad?
Posted on 2003-09-15 08:23:04 by Hiroshimator
I'm not old enougth to be allowed to vote, yet, but I'd vote for yes if I was allowed to vote. I was anti-?uro *before* I started looking at the "facts" (bith sides use rather, IMO, dubios facts on _a few_ occasions), then there is the political (influence) apspect too. (just a side note: _some_ of the no voters also want us to leave the union completley -- but they spoke very quielty about it during the campaign...)

I hope that the vast majority of the no votes are no as in "no right now" (considering the current economical status in some countries -- which not depends on the Euro it self but other political reasons --).

But in real life, you can get you money in euro (when taking it out from the cash machines), you can even pay in most bigger stores with euro...

As for this everlasting war whether prices wil rise or not, low cost countries will se their prices rise, high cost countries, well, the prices should fall somewhat.
Posted on 2003-09-15 08:43:12 by scientica
VICTORY!!! :grin:
Posted on 2003-09-15 10:57:54 by david
Actually I think that "NO" for euro is mistake. But who knows, maybe swedish people know better. ( or someone payed more than anotherone for advertisement :grin: ) I think that this is not "NO" but "Not yet". :)

Regards.
Posted on 2003-09-15 11:26:41 by JohnFound
Delight,

the reason why I'm a "europhop" is simply that I think the risks are much higher than chances (for germany one have to say: chances? what chances?). If continental european economy remains week as in the last years - and I see no reason why it should perform better in next years - there is a remarkable risk that this adventure ends in a very expensive desaster.

Japheth
Posted on 2003-09-15 12:31:02 by japheth

( or someone payed more than anotherone for advertisement :grin: )

The "funny" thing is that the yes side had a lot of money (the corps. supports a yes) where as the no side didn't (the no side used this (the yes sides "blessing" from the corps -- wonder why the corps spend money on a yes unless they think it's good... ) against the yes side), the no sida has had it easy, just sit back and comment everything yes side says, and scare people (ok, both sides uses (some) scracecrow propaganda).
Why is germany having problems, well from what I've heard it's the re-uitment of east and west, no the euro that causes this situation........ (I'm not against it, and I hope they'll be done with it before we vote the next time (don't know how long time it'll take untill next time -- not too long, but long enougth to make the no voter see that the euro is safer than having the small Swedish crown floating around the ocean waiting to be specualted to the bottom)).
Posted on 2003-09-15 12:55:08 by scientica
Above the gates of the Bulgarian parliament, there are a motto (in free translation):

"The union makes the force".
(Unfortunately the bulgarian politics don't use this motto, but this another story. ;) )

I like it. It's true in all circumstances. Look at USA - it's not one country. Every state is one small country with one common currency. What if different states decide to use different currencies? What you think about "Texas dollar" and "Georgia gulden"? It will be very good: when the Texas oil finishes, the Georgia will not feel that, because of diferent currencies. ;) :grin:
Posted on 2003-09-15 13:51:23 by JohnFound
I also believe in strength in numbers and it's about time europe starts growing more cohesive. :)
Posted on 2003-09-15 15:56:37 by Hiroshimator
like this one?
Posted on 2003-09-19 16:23:22 by Qages
I agree with Hiro's comment that Europe should become more cohesive, but that too is the problem... Europe is a collection of states who have at one time or another been at war with EVERYBODY else in Europe. There are underlying tensions which make the running of Europe as a single body virtually impossible. Take the recent comments of Mr. Berlusconi, this does not make for an effective governing body.
While the governmental control is not in place, I cannot support a currency who's foundation is that government. If (monetary and general) policy is dictated by the self interest of the individual states, the Euro as a currency will not be as strong as it should, and indeed needs to be.

There are other economic problems (the ability to set interest rates on a more localised level for example) which make joining enough of a headache. I belive in time, the Euro-zone will normalise itself, and overcome these problems. But in the short term (and this is what voters will think about) such problems weigh on peoples minds, and without the backing of a sound, purposeful, and fair governing body, I would not vote for the Euro (when and if the economic tests of Gordon Brown are met).

Mirno
Posted on 2003-09-20 07:32:15 by Mirno

like this one?


Looks like friggen monopoly money, and unfortunetly our currency is going the same route.
Posted on 2003-09-20 11:32:51 by SpooK

Europe is a collection of states who have at one time or another been at war with EVERYBODY else in Europe. There are underlying tensions which make the running of Europe as a single body virtually impossible.

Maybe I'm talking out of my head here... but is it truly relevant if european countries have been at war in the past? After all, many countries have had civil wars, and that does not seem to be much of an obstacle for national cohesion. The USA is one of such countries, for example.
Posted on 2003-09-20 13:18:02 by QvasiModo
I don't think so.

the US had a huge civil war, they overcame that. They had slaves, another issue that has been overcome. They've put the natives in reservates... yet another non-issue >:/


European countries are more or less similar in structure and underlying culture and could (for the most) go together very well in my opinion.
Posted on 2003-09-20 15:00:24 by Hiroshimator
The real problem is "who decides what" problem. If I am not mistaken I have previously read about European countries being denied entrance into the EU do to their "economic state". Even if those countries were allowed into the EU why would they want to be controlled by an economic majority?

The US ran into a similiar problem with our legislative branch. The problem was a division among states deciding if we should allow only a certain number of representatives from each state despite size and population (Senate) or to base representation on size and population (House of Representatives). We ended up combining the two and now split powers between the two.

In the end do you think Germany, England or France will allow "lesser" countries to affect their existance in any manner whatsoever? Too much pride and greed for such an idea to pass... but please prove me wrong.
Posted on 2003-09-20 15:16:34 by SpooK
it's not about "lesser" countries I think. It's about only being able to take on that much at a time. :|

we can not bring the economic level of all countries combined to the same level so we start with those few that have spend decades planning all of this.
The end goal is to have a united europe with all its members on a similar economical and social level, which is not an easy feat given the state of some countries while also not being in an economically very flourishing time :/

I believe that the moral idea of a joint europe is a good one and cn be beneficiary to those for which it matters the most, common europeans like me and other board members. You won't see me crying if it's not the best for corporations or anything.


The only thing I really hope is that they do not copy *anything* from the US. No offense but
1) our parliaments have to prove them to be smart enough themselves.
2) I don't believe the US people are justly represented by their 'elected' government and hence consider most of their actions not pro-people but pro-supporters (corporations)

Without wanting to turn this into a US <-> Europe thing, it really should be our own doing I think, else we can not get to the social model we want.
Posted on 2003-09-20 15:45:20 by Hiroshimator

I don't think so.

The US had a huge civil war, they overcame that. They had slaves, another issue that has been overcome. They've put the natives in reservates... yet another non-issue >:/

European countries are more or less similar in structure and underlying culture and could (for the most) go together very well in my opinion.

Glad to see we think the same. :)
Posted on 2003-09-22 13:39:48 by QvasiModo

The only thing I really hope is that they do not copy *anything* from the US. No offense but
1) our parliaments have to prove them to be smart enough themselves.
2) I don't believe the US people are justly represented by their 'elected' government and hence consider most of their actions not pro-people but pro-supporters (corporations)

Without wanting to turn this into a US <-> Europe thing, it really should be our own doing I think, else we can not get to the social model we want.

I agree that a different region of the planet should have its own economic system, since different people may find their ideal solution to be different. I'm not really sure about your criticism to the US election system (I don't really know much about it). Could someone enlighten me, please?
Posted on 2003-09-22 13:43:17 by QvasiModo

I'm not really sure about your criticism to the US election system (I don't really know much about it). Could someone enlighten me, please?

Didn't the "looser" have more people in total voting for him than for Bush?
Posted on 2003-09-23 02:21:40 by scientica