It's time for Britain to join the Euro currency

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Exactly what you said. Now, apparently, not what you meant.

No it is not. Learn to read.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Opinion. You need to learn the difference between an opinion and a fact.

You need to learn what politics is. Gosh politicians never produce their opinions as facts do they

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Ah brown did it. All on his own, he manipulated the world money markets to ensure that the pound was devalued. Do you even think before you type?!

Nope, he manipulated our economy. You know during his decade as chancellor (the guy who runs our economy) and more recen
tly as PM (you know the guy who runs the country)

Another stupid remark by a stupid kid.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

You can't. That was the point I was making. You made a wild assertion with no basis whatsoever in fact and then got all pissypants about it when you were called on your utter horseshit. Stop making wild assertions and stating them as fact and I'll stop calling you on it.

Learn how to debate.

LOL I have said all along it is my opinion, now produce a counter arguement or shut up.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Yes, it's called an opinion. There is a common internet convention that might help you here. 'IMO' stands for 'in my opinion' and can be used to indicate easily that something you say is an opinion. Alternatively if that's a bit to high tech for you you could just write 'it is my opinion that' or even just 'I think that' (though whether you actually think is something of an open question).

Learn how to debate.

Indulging in semantics is not debate.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

I know how to debate. You evidently don't. Calling me a lightweight just shows you for the fool you are.

You are the fool and a ligthweight.

Try and argue a counter economic argument, you cant because you dont understand it.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

I don't need a counter argument. I have not made any wild assertions and therefore I don't have anything to back up. That's how it works.

You dont have an arguement that is the problem.

Perhaps try reading your own words, you might have more success with understanding them.

Quantify:

It's time for Britain to join the Euro currency

Other than by saying it's be good for your holiday.

You cant because you debate like a 4 year old.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Dogberry, honestly, I doubt you have the intellect to tie your shoes properly. You are, and will always remain, a joke until you learn how to debate.

Now why don't you toddle off and post some cheap innuendo somewhere, as you seem to be very much better at that.

Right back at you.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Break it up, break it up.

I ain't gonna read this thread, but I will type this, currency trading is a filthy racket and all those who made money on that should give it back.

[cellularsociety]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

No it is not. Learn to read.

Ok. Let's read what you said then shall we. Let's practice our reading.

Originally Posted by Dogberry

post #9: The £ has been devalued deliberately, so that the euro will be an easy transition. That is also the reason we have been flooded with immigrants, they will not resist the EU

That's what you said. That is a statement of fact; an assertion with no basis in fact whatsoever. You need to practice your reading it would seem.

You need to learn what politics is. Gosh politicians never produce their opinions as facts do they

Wtf?! So because politicians lie and mislead people when it suits them you consider that an acceptable standard of political debate is to just make up any old shit and dismiss anyone who calls you on your BS. That says a great deal about you.

Nope, he manipulated our economy. You know during his decade as chancellor (the guy who runs our economy) and more recen
tly as PM (you know the guy who runs the country)

Another stupid remark by a stupid kid.

How so? This is your chance. Show what actions Gordon brown took and how they lead inevitably and inexorably to a devaluation of the pound.

If you do this right we can actually have a debate of some substance so make the effort.

LOL I have said all along it is my opinion, now produce a counter arguement or shut up.

A counter argument to what, idiot? You made a baseless assertion. I asked for evidence. You had none. 'Argument' (though its hardly worthy of the name) countered.

Indulging in semantics is not debate.

Semantics? Are you serious? You think the difference between fact and opinion is nothing more than semantics? What's wrong with you?!

Perhaps try reading your own words, you might have more success with understanding them.

Quantify:

It's time for Britain to join the Euro currency

Other than by saying it's be good for your holiday.

OK. When the Euro first came out is was very weak against the pound. It was so weak in fact that it was unclear at that stage whether it would actually survive as a currency. Obviously, at that stage it would have been potentially disastrous for the UK to join the Euro.

Things have changed significantly since then. The Euro survived those initial tough times and is now, in itself a strong and resilient currency.

In addition to this there is talk (unsubstantiated admittedly) of the Euro replacing the US dollar as the oil currency of choice. Should that happen the Euro could potentially become the strongest currency in the world.

Given the other advantages outlined by IFF and the advantages offered to citizens such as ease of movement I see no reason not to join the Euro.

So far you have mentioned two reasons why we should not join.

Firstly that we trade more with the US. I don't know whether this is in fact the case but I'm not in a position to argue with it right now for lack of evidence myself. However, I don't see that swapping to the Euro would be massively damaging to trade with the US, so perhaps you should show how, specifically, it would be so damaging if you wish to advance that argument.

Second, that our economy is based on property ownership and that the continental economy is not and that this will result in a mismatch. That there is a difference between our economy and theirs is undeniable, so now you need to outline how, specifically that would be damaging.

So now I have answered your question and the onus is upon you to explain your arguments against it.


Mark

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

That's what you said. That is a statement of fact; an assertion with no basis in fact whatsoever. You need to practice your reading it would seem.

LOL you are truly stupid.

Next time you present your opinion as fact (like pretty much every posters here does) i will be sure to point it out.

Like i said semantics is not debate.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Wtf?! So because politicians lie and mislead people when it suits them you consider that an acceptable standard of political debate is to just make up any old shit and dismiss anyone who calls you on your BS. That says a great deal about you.

No, politicians back their assertions up with opinion and fact, which is what I did.

There are no defifnates out there, except in mark's tiny mind.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

How so? This is your chance. Show what actions Gordon brown took and how they lead inevitably and inexorably to a devaluation of the pound.

If you do this right we can actually have a debate of some substance so make the effort.

I did, tsk you really cant read can you.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

A counter argument to what, idiot? You made a baseless assertion. I asked for evidence. You had none. 'Argument' (though its hardly worthy of the name) countered.

Dont bother then.

Lets face it I dont think you can.

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Semantics? Are you serious? You think the difference between fact and opinion is nothing more than semantics? What's wrong with you?!

Whats the matter with you?

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

OK. When the Euro first came out is was very weak against the pound. It was so weak in fact that it was unclear at that stage whether it would actually survive as a currency. Obviously, at that stage it would have been potentially disastrous for the UK to join the Euro.

Things have changed significantly since then. The Euro survived those initial tough times and is now, in itself a strong and resilient currency.

In addition to this there is talk (unsubstantiated admittedly) of the Euro replacing the US dollar as the oil currency of choice. Should that happen the Euro could potentially become the strongest currency in the world.

Given the other advantages outlined by IFF and the advantages offered to citizens such as ease of movement I see no reason not to join the Euro.

So far you have mentioned two reasons why we should not join.

Firstly that we trade more with the US. I don't know whether this is in fact the case but I'm not in a position to argue with it right now for lack of evidence myself. However, I don't see that swapping to the Euro would be massively damaging to trade with the US, so perhaps you should show how, specifically, it would be so damaging if you wish to advance that argument.

Second, that our economy is based on property ownership and that the continental economy is not and that this will result in a mismatch. That there is a difference between our economy and theirs is undeniable, so now you need to outline how, specifically that would be damaging.

So now I have answered your question and the onus is upon you to explain your arguments against it.

Good God!

A semi coherent arguement.

Now had you done that in the first place we might have got somewhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...tain-join-euro

Here is a good article on the matter, it posts arguement for an against and being the grauniad it is more left than right wing.

It points out the boom and bust under the EU which would inevitably have happened here, only much much worse.

Interest rates means everything in the UK, which is why it is always front page news. To put that in the hands of Fritxz and hercule would be utter madness.

[cellularsociety]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

Good God!

A semi coherent arguement.

Now had you done that in the first place we might have got somewhere.

We would have got somewhere had you not made baseless assertions and refused point blank to concede that you were talking shit. No matter, we finally have something of substance and, almost unbelievably, some back up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...tain-join-euro

Here is a good article on the matter, it posts arguement for an against and being the grauniad it is more left than right wing.

It points out the boom and bust under the EU which would inevitably have happened here, only much much worse.

I have clearly stated several times in this thread that I have not supported the Euro before now. So arguments as to how it would have been had we joined up earlier are entirely moot.

The whole point of my argument is that things have changed.

Interest rates means everything in the UK, which is why it is always front page news. To put that in the hands of Fritxz and hercule would be utter madness.

From the article:

Originally Posted by the article

Spain and Ireland, both members of the euro, saw their house prices soar during the boom when the interest rates set by the European central bank were too low for their economies

The UK rate of interest is currently lower than the Euro interest rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8344384.stm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aTTZesd0cOQ8


But I presume that your argument is more to the fact that a centrally operated interest rate may not fit all of its members and may therefore become harmful. Is that correct?

Mark

[Truth-Bringer]

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Anyways, who's trying to control anybody.

You are, if you advocate government control over their currency.

I'm expressing an opinion.

Sounds to me like you want them to "obey" your "opinion."

Seriously though, are you advocating complete freedom of currency worldwide at all times? If I go to the US can I expect to be able to pay in Norwegian Kroner?

You will be expected to pay in a manner that the business will accept. If the business owner wants to accept Kroners, then, yes, you can pay in Norwegian Kroners. Obviously, people will voluntarily gravitate to just a few standard currencies based on the strengths they perceive in those currencies. Gold and silver-backed currencies would undoubtedly move to the top of those preference lists.

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

We would have got somewhere had you not made baseless assertions and refused point blank to concede that you were talking shit. No matter, we finally have something of substance and, almost unbelievably, some back up.

Yeah right

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

I have clearly stated several times in this thread that I have not supported the Euro before now. So arguments as to how it would have been had we joined up earlier are entirely moot.

The whole point of my argument is that things have changed.

Which is what the article says

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

The UK rate of interest is currently lower than the Euro interest rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8344384.stm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aTTZesd0cOQ8


But I presume that your argument is more to the fact that a centrally operated interest rate may not fit all of its members and may therefore become harmful. Is that correct?

Mark

YES!

That is what i have been saying all through the thread.

[cellularsociety]

Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer

You are, if you advocate government control over their currency.

I am advocating one nation voluntarily and peacefully joining others under a single currency. This fits neatly with your ethos, so what's the problem?

Sounds to me like you want them to "obey" your "opinion."

I really have no idea what you mean by this?

You will be expected to pay in a manner that the business will accept. If the business owner wants to accept Kroners, then, yes, you can pay in Norwegian Kroners. Obviously, people will voluntarily gravitate to just a few standard currencies based on the strengths they perceive in those currencies. Gold and silver-backed currencies would undoubtedly move to the top of those preference lists.

Why should the business owner have any right to impinge upon my peaceful, honest and voluntary decision to pay in Kenyan Shillings?



Mark

[cellularsociety]

(I'll ignore the Bullshit and just address the (very slightly) useful bit)

YES!

That is what i have been saying all through the thread.

Put simply, while there is the chance that such a situation could occur I don't believe that the risk is serious enough to rule out joining the Euro at a stroke, particularly when compared to the potential benefits on offer.

Mark

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

(I'll ignore the Bullshit and just address the (very slightly) useful bit)




Put simply, while there is the chance that such a situation could occur I don't believe that the risk is serious enough to rule out joining the Euro at a stroke, particularly when compared to the potential benefits on offer.

Mark

And the benefits would be?

[cellularsociety]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

And the benefits would be?

The ones I outlined in post #63 and you responded to in post #64 genius.

Oh, plus the ones outlined by IFF earlier in the thread.

Mark

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

The ones I outlined in post #63 and you responded to in post #64 genius.

Oh, plus the ones outlined by IFF earlier in the thread.

Mark

No genius i meant benefits to the UK.

other than easier movement for you on holiday. What economic benefits for the UK specifically.

Can you actually answer?

[cellularsociety]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

No genius i meant benefits to the UK.

other than easier movement for you on holiday. What economic benefits for the UK specifically.

Can you actually answer?

Jesus H Christ on a bicycle. If your going to post an article at least read the ****ing thing.

from the article:

Inside the eurozone, there is collective security against a systemic crisis in the banking system; outside the eurozone Britain is simply a middle-ranking economic power with a bloated financial sector and a huge debt.

This is just one advantage and it's actually in the article you posted. I know I said that above but I thought I'd say it again because you don't seem to get things the first time round.

Mark

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by cellularsociety

Jesus H Christ on a bicycle. If your going to post an article at least read the ****ing thing.

from the article:



This is just one advantage and it's actually in the article you posted. I know I said that above but I thought I'd say it again because you don't seem to get things the first time round.

Mark

LOL

You dont actually know do you!!!!!!!!

Lets face it your entire arguement is based on your petty self interest for your holibobs.

The article goes on to say

The argument against is that joining the eurozone shortly after the 2003 tests were conducted would have done little to spare Britain from recession, and may indeed have made the boom-bust cycle worse.

Spain and Ireland, both members of the euro, saw their house prices soar during the boom when the interest rates set by the European central bank were too low for their economies, and have suffered painful busts now that the cycle has turned. Ireland, once the Celtic tiger, will be the worst performing western European economy this year.

Proving your comprehension is let us say poor.

[oki]

Originally Posted by IFF

article 50 - http://register.consilium.europa.eu/...06655.en08.pdf

the only part of it to be negotiated about the withdrawal of a country, in my reading of it, is the procedure such a withdrawal will happen with and what future relationship that country wants with the EU

read the sub articles. the union will nagotiate a withdrawl with the member that wants to withdraw. nagotiated by the council, after the parlement approves of this. so that can be frustrated.
if that fails, the country is stuck for 2 years after notification of tehir wll to withdraw, to the treaty. they have no say in the council anymore in this period.

well thats what i read in it at least. the EU parlement can make it very difficult to leave.

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by oki

read the sub articles. the union will nagotiate a withdrawl with the member that wants to withdraw. nagotiated by the council, after the parlement approves of this. so that can be frustrated.
if that fails, the country is stuck for 2 years after notification of tehir wll to withdraw, to the treaty. they have no say in the council anymore in this period.

well thats what i read in it at least. the EU parlement can make it very difficult to leave.

Indeed.

We are screwed.

[cellularsociety]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

LOL

You dont actually know do you!!!!!!!!

Lets face it your entire arguement is based on your petty self interest for your holibobs.

You know, no matter how many times you try to claim this is just about my holidays its not going to suddenly be true - I holiday in the UK you ****ing moron.

The article goes on to say

Proving your comprehension is let us say poor.

So we have one argument - the one for joining (since you're clearly to thick to work it out for yourself) - that is based on CURRENT circumstances

Then we have one - the one against - based on what happened to other countries in the past, all of which is moot, because I've already stated that I didn't support it in the past.

Which argument is more valid Dogberry, the one based on actual circumstances as they are, or one based on something that happened somewhere else under different circumstances in the past?

If you can't work out the answer to that question then you really are a total waste of my time. I will give you this one last opportunity not to be a total shitstain. If you fail I will no longer waste my time on you.

Mark

[oki]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

No genius i meant benefits to the UK.

other than easier movement for you on holiday. What economic benefits for the UK specifically.

Can you actually answer?

em.. I was the one with the comment about my holiday, not mark...

and to awnser your question: youll be part of a stronger currentcy then the pound. you dont have to pay banks anymore to change currentcy.
and for teh rest, it wont make much of a difference, because britain is ALLREADY part of the EU economic system, you only have to change your coin and then its complete. youre allready having the benefits of it, right now. you pay little (one of teh lowest contributions of all members) and you get a lot of the money to stimulate your economy, im sure. (we, holland, get a shitload of funds to fix up neighbourhoods, stimulate eareas that are falling back, etc etc, im sure you get that as well)

[oki]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

LOL

You dont actually know do you!!!!!!!!

Lets face it your entire arguement is based on your petty self interest for your holibobs.

The article goes on to say
The argument against is that joining the eurozone shortly after the 2003 tests were conducted would have done little to spare Britain from recession, and may indeed have made the boom-bust cycle worse.

Spain and Ireland, both members of the euro, saw their house prices soar during the boom when the interest rates set by the European central bank were too low for their economies, and have suffered painful busts now that the cycle has turned. Ireland, once the Celtic tiger, will be the worst performing western European economy this year.



Proving your comprehension is let us say poor.

this is funny, since ireland is the EU's biggest succes story, the country went through an amazing boom since they joined the EU. right now, its falling back, yes. but that does not brush away the incredible rise they have gone through.
party, this goes for spain as well. these were very poor countries when they joined. now, not anymore.
sorry but you cant argue that the EU economic policies arent working, they are working like a charm. thats why i do not speak against the EU as an economic union, its well done and benefits all. its the other part that i, and i think you too, are against. the part that wants to turn us all into one super nation with an army, president, and all that crap that noone needs. its purely based on arrogance and power lust. screw that, we're all countries, not states.

[Dogberry]

[quote=cellularsociety;1845150]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

LOL

You dont actually know do you!!!!!!!!

Lets face it your entire arguement is based on your petty self interest for your holibobs.

You know, no matter how many times you try to claim this is just about my holidays its not going to suddenly be true - I holiday in the UK you ****ing moron.




So we have one argument - the one for joining (since you're clearly to thick to work it out for yourself) - that is based on CURRENT circumstances

Then we have one - the one against - based on what happened to other countries in the past, all of which is moot, because I've already stated that I didn't support it in the past.

Which argument is more valid Dogberry, the one based on actual circumstances as they are, or one based on something that happened somewhere else under different circumstances in the past?

If you can't work out the answer to that question then you really are a total waste of my time. I will give you this one last opportunity not to be a total shitstain. If you fail I will no longer waste my time on you.

Mark

shitstain?

Wow you really are showing me how to debate.

As you are incapable of understanding even the simplest statement i shall explain. The argument is that within the Euro zone the UK would have been (in the past) proected, which clrearly did not work in ireland and Spains case.

The argument you used, (which i gave you) is also based in the past.

Unlesss you think the banking crisis they are referring to is next week?

Seferring to what i have given you what benefits is there for the UK in joining the euro?

Originally Posted by oki

em.. I was the one with the comment about my holiday, not mark...

and to awnser your question: youll be part of a stronger currentcy then the pound. you dont have to pay banks anymore to change currentcy.
and for teh rest, it wont make much of a difference, because britain is ALLREADY part of the EU economic system, you only have to change your coin and then its complete. youre allready having the benefits of it, right now. you pay little (one of teh lowest contributions of all members) and you get a lot of the money to stimulate your economy, im sure. (we, holland, get a shitload of funds to fix up neighbourhoods, stimulate eareas that are falling back, etc etc, im sure you get that as well)

Yes we know you get a shitload of funds, we are the ones paying for it.
The latest figures show that over the ten-year period 1993-2002 inclusive, the UK paid over to EU Institutions... gross, cumulatively: £104 billion.

In those same ten years the UK received back, cumulatively: £64 billion.

So the UK's net contribution over that ten-year period was £40 billion, or an average of £4 billion per year.

The 2002 net contribution was £4.3 billion.

Assuming an average UK population over those ten years of 59 million, that works out at £678 as the average net contribution that every man, woman and child in the UK has paid over to "Brussels" in the last decade.

Putting it another way, the UK has paid over to Brussels, net, in every single one of the 3,652 days (including two leap years) of the last ten years, £11 million. Or, £77 million per week

Money markets actually make money for us so that would be a loss.