There’s been a fierce debate raging in the comments of our recent post about whether or not the UK should really have tried to renegotiate powers at last week’s EU summit. Ultimately, British Prime Minister David Cameron used his veto, with the result that (as one of our commenters, Jason O’Mahony, predicted) a new intergovernmental treaty will now be signed outside of the EU framework. The exact membership of this “club within a club” has not yet been finalised, but there’s a chance that the new group might be “everyone but the Brits.”
Today, we spoke with Ivan Mikloš, the Finance Minister of Slovakia, and asked him to respond to some of your comments. Firstly, we asked him if he agreed with Tim Worstall’s comment that it was time for the UK to finally leave the EU once and for all.
I don’t agree with this. I think, for the UK, it is beneficial to be a member of the EU. But also for the others, it’s better that the UK is a part of the EU. However, the question of whether to join a fiscal union is the responsibility of each individual country. Meaning, it is legitimate that any country can say ‘no’. From my point of view, as an economist, new fiscal rules which are stricter will benefit everybody who joins. With the debt problem today, it is in everybody’s interest to push for tougher rules.
Very few of our commenters, however, seem to agree with you. Commenters from both the UK (such as Tim) and from other EU member-states (such as Josephine) argue that it is time for the UK to stop holding back the others and, possibly, even to leave the EU. We asked our readers in a Facebook poll “Should the UK be allowed to renegotiate powers away from the EU?” and, whilst only slightly more answered “yes” than “no”, an overwhelming majority voted that the UK should “leave altogether”. This is hardly a scientific poll, but does the Minister think that relations between the UK and the rest of Europe have been damaged by David Cameron’s veto?
I don’t know if the word ‘damage’ is correct. Of course, the relationship between the UK and other member-states is worsening. And, of course, the current situation is not helpful because it creates legal and other challenges; it will now be impossible to create stricter rules through EU treaty changes. But, on the other hand, it is legitimate for every country to decide.
Given these challenges thrown up by the UK veto, then, will the new “Euro-plus” treaty be enough to reassure the markets and bring an end to the debt crisis?
Nobody knows, of course, and the problem is that, in the short-term, we still have to solve the turbulence of the market. What I think is important is that we don’t implement something like Eurobonds, and we don’t have the possibility of the European Central Bank (ECB) buying without limits. Maybe from a short-term perspective this could solve things, but from a mid and long-term perspective it would create further problems. For a real mid and long-term solution, we need fiscal union by creating rules, and by giving further competency to the European Court of Justice and the European Commission.
This is interesting, because we had a comment from Protesilaos Stavrou arguing almost exactly the opposite. He thinks that, for a long-term solution, we need more than just stricter rules – we need full fiscal union with the possibility of a common treasury and fiscal transfers from surplus countries to others. He’s also critical of giving further competency to the European Court of Justice and the European Commission because they are unelected. In the long-term, is the Euro project really sustainable without the kind of fiscal union Protesilaos is arguing for?
Theoretically, it might be true what Protesilaos proposes. Practically, it is politically impossible. The only thing that is politically possible today is what was proposed by Germany and France. Politically, stronger fiscal union and a transfer union – which means creating and building new institutions along with new common European taxes – this kind of transfer union is politically unsustainable. Even if this vision was the consensus amongst EU governments today, which I can tell you it is not, it will be unsustainable because it will be rejected by the people.
Of course, some of these things – for instance, Eurobonds – are maybe politically possible, but only after we have created strong rules which will minimise the risk of any moral hazard. This kind of fiscal union, which is represented by Eurobonds and other institutional changes, will not be possible unless we first create new rules to minimise risk. After we’ve done that, then we talk about Eurobonds and other measures.
What about the criticism that these measures are undemocratic? Aren’t you nervous about giving Commission officials the power to investigate the business of your ministry?
No, I’m not nervous. In fact, I welcome stricter rules. But I have one precondition: they have to be automatic rules. If a country is not enacting responsible policies, then enforcement of the rules shouldn’t be subject to majority voting. If there is any doubt about the strength of the rules, then they will not function correctly. However, if implemented properly then they should create limitations on the populist approach of unsustainable government spending.
What do YOU think? Do you agree with Tim that it’s time for the UK to leave the EU and allow the other member-states to continue without it? Or do you think that both the EU and the UK are stronger together? Do you agree with Protesilaos that a stronger fiscal union is the only way out of this crisis, or do you think this is politically impossible? Let us know in the form below, and we’ll take your comments to politicians, experts and others to hear their reactions.
PLEASE NOTE: We encourage a lively debate from our commenters, but this comes with the condition that you must always be respectful. Before leaving a comment, please make sure you are discussing the arguments themselves and not the people making them. Any comments considered disrespectful to other readers will be removed.
22 comments Post a commentcomment
definitely we should keep uk inside eu, but not for any price of course. hopefully the british will see it is better for them too.
There can be no doubt about the political incompatibilities that exist within the EU or the lack of democracy and especially transparency. However, IF those whose vision is an united Europe under a European Union, should stop behaving like children in their very own make believe world. Those nations that do want such a ‘complete’ union, should unite and set the constitution and rules of membership to a complete union. Those that do not want to join that complete union, should leave altogether. It is as simple as all that. This complete union should be a ‘stand on it’s own two feet union’, that would include withdrawing from NATO, removing its (NATO) personnel and hardware and creating a Union defence force (for example). In other words, I personally cannot see any genuine interest in creating a European Union from any side, only a bunch of characters who seek to use, a pretend Union, for their respective interests (including those of non European interests)
First the whole David Cameron fiasco was a complete side issue and to be truthful whether the UK is in the EU or not is completely irrelevant to the main eurozone problem.
The real problem is that there is still no long term structure to rescuing the euro which requires some vision, a lot of courage and leadership – which unfortunately is lacking.
The problems are just being shelved, the minimum being done. The solution to Greece is to cut drastically – not to work out a long term solution, where the inefficient is pruned, but that there is a strategy for growth and therefore repayment.
What we need is, as I have suggested previously, something like the American led Marshall Plan, which helped re-construct Europe after the Second World War, but obviously a European led Marshall Plan.
How I see it working
The structure should be set up under the EU and would concern the 17 countries, with membership of the euro, and those countries planning to join. I would suggest a possible name could be Euro Structural Partnership, ESP.
It would have a number of roles:
1) Launch a eurobond
This should be set up quickly and be guaranteed by the whole euro-region.
2) Stop the speculation
The first strategy should be to enable the weaker euro economies replace their debt, with money from the bonds. This will immediately stop speculation.
It would also mean strong monitoring of the country, but the overall plan should be to help productivity, growth, employment and improved governance over a longer period of time then the current savage deficit reductions.
3) Build a structure to manage the euro
This has clearly be lacking as even the countries have breached the controls on the zone. I personally prefer a completely integrated single control, but many countries will need convincing.
Therefore there needs to be a working group and over the years this needs to be strengthened.
4) Invest in the weaker economies
We need to help the weaker economies build systems to improve their governmental systems, such as tax collection; build infrastructure; build their economy.
5) Invest in growth for the whole of Europe
One of the reasons America set up the Marshall Plan was to build markets for its industries. It was able to dramatically boost its economy by investing in our wrecked economies.
We need to build all the eurozone’s economies to build a market for the goods produced. Some of the old industrial towns of eastern Germany need this support as much as say Greece.
6) Build up potential eurozone members
We need to build up these economies, some of which have been badly managed, so that they can be readily integrated.
Euro Structural Partnership
So the ESP has two short term projects and a number of long term projects.
Short term
Set up a management structure and a eurobond issue to prevent debt crises and the talk of defaults.
Long term
Set up either an integrated euro financial system or an enforceable monitoring and controls on all euro-members to prevent the series of problems we are experiencing.
In addition it needs to offer further bond issues to support the weaker economies and to develop growth.
Long term aims for the euro
The management of the euro should have the following goals.
1) Stable – so investors will see it as a good investment.
2) Safe – so that investors are confident that they will get their money back.
3) Relatively low value – to encourage exports and tourism and therefore growth.
4) Potentially a world reserve currency – the dollar can no longer be considered a safe, long term currency because of its deficit and the potentially erratic behaviour of some of its politicians.
I am aware that some commodity producers, eg oil, have looked at the potential of pricing their products in euros as an alternative to the dollar. My speculation is that the dollar will gradually lose its dominance and that other currencies, including the euro, could be used in some regions.
Will ESP get support?
I note that China and some of Middle Eastern Sovereign Funds are, even with our debt crises, looking at investing in the euro as a way of balancing their investments. It is in their interest to see a stable euro – if not even China’s economy is affected.
I feel that if we offer a constructive way of resolving the immediate debt problems, with a structure that looks like a reasonable long term strategy for stability and growth the funds will flow into the eurozone as a very safe haven. The risk will be that they may flow too fast risking an over-valued euro.
Will the German voters buy ESP?
I personally think that a long term strategy for sorting out the immediate debt problems will gain more support from voters than the continual bail-outs and the threat of defaults etc.
If this can be done within a framework that will improve productivity and financial stability of the weaker economies and boost growth throughout the whole eurozone, particularly in the weaker areas of even the stronger economies would be easier to sell.
What Mr. Miklos says is absolutely correct. Politically speaking a genuine fiscal union is indeed impossible, at least within the current context. Hence European politics are characterized by an unprecedented “gradualism”, which seeks to reach specific ends by preparing the ground step by step. This is not necessarily wrong or undesirable, considering how diverse and multi-dimensional European politics are, from the supranational level, all the way down to national/local party politics. After all this is how the EU has always functioned ever since the Treaty of Rome (EEC at the time). All these decades the progress that has been made within this gradualist approach is significant, though there might be some discussion on secondary issues. This sort of achieving further integration has therefore proven to be a successful regime of reaching the ultimate goal of a political union in Europe, or at least an ever-closer union.
Yet the conditions imposed by the crisis are fundamentally different than what used to be the case in previous epochs. In our days time is a luxury, while also market pressures are almost always faster than any democratic process (never forget democracy, EU already suffers from a democratic deficit – we want that to diminish not increase). Within this environment where the extraordinary becomes the standard political leaders need to think outside the rigid boundaries of their traditional practices. They need to act pro-actively not retroactively, as that is the only way to remain ahead of the markets. Alas for that to be true this gradualism I mentioned above cannot be the way forward, for it always leads to retroactive decisions, long after the disintegrating dynamics of the crisis have evolved into other realms and areas. Exactly because our leaders fall behind markets in decision-making, they always find their selves in a weaker position, laboring under immense pressure, often in desperately stressful conditions. This leads to mistakes and there have been many of them in the recent past. I could go down the line mentioning one by one all the contradictions and errors made by our political elite from summit after summit. However this is not our point here.
The gist is that in trying to maintain the same “politically” realistic approach, European elites end up being those who unwillingly materialize the desires of speculators. So far every single decision they have made has been in line with what the markets asked for. For me this is to a large extend why they are unable to provide any effective response to the crisis (there have always been flaws in the system of course, but let us not mention that now).
The tragedy, I may say, that we are facing is that in trying to be politically correct, paving the road for some closer union of the future, we have been unable to solve our current issues. I understand the need to look into the future. But in my understanding, if the euro falls apart (and there are many chances for that) then all plans for the “future” will be in vain, for states will return back to their national currencies, where they will be willing to control their monetary policy, implying that there is no chance they will give up their fiscal sovereignty – and Mr. Miklos who is an economist knows that well.
As for the last summit, I am afraid to say that it has produced a spectacular hole in the water, not only because on the economic level it did nothing to arrest the crisis, but mostly because it brought to the surface an “explosive” political debate about the role of each state in the EU; what this union is all about; where does sovereignty start and end; should we be part of it or not. Frankly this is no good news for anyone. The last thing we wanted now was to open the Pandora’s Box of competing national and supranational politics. Yet we did exactly that, adding a political layer on top of the existing economic crisis. In my view there is nothing to cheer about.
Well, clearly, I agree with Tim.
But I should point out perhaps that I’m not just advocating that the UK leave the EU. It’s not because I think the UK is special in some way that other European countries are not. It’s because I think that the EU itself is an extremely bad idea. Thus my argument is that the UK should not be in the EU is not one that restricts itself to saying that only the UK should not be in the EU. Because the EU itself is a bad idea no one should be in it.
The EU simply should not exist at all. My aim is to live long enough to micturate upon its grave.
The crisis is not solved and it will not be solved by half measures. It is the moment for EU to become more united and not be driven by individual member interests. I hope the crisis will open our eyes to see that ‘Unity in diversity’ are not simple words.
The UK needs to Europe and would not give to have control over European politics so easily. The position put by the Prime Minister in the last European Council electoral just a nod to a position typical of British citizenship.
The UK sought support within the euro group to allow the city to have some control over the situation, but it gets it dedicated to attacking the sovereign debt until a supporting policies that are most favorable.
Well since the British people are unhappy so much about their EU membership, as we usually read in every website and blog, and since their Government and political elite has never been 100% committed to the project, then what else is there to say?
The sad thing is that they do not realize, that if they leave EU they will probably end up like Norway..they will still have to follow some EU regulations and contribute to the EU budget, but they will have no say in it…They will have no say on how those money will be spent, or no say to influence EU at all…And they are a country of 60 million people, not 4.5 like Norway. They do have a voice after all..
Sadly, their media and political elite give them a distorted image of their country’s EU membership, and what they will lose out if they leave…Well if that what they wish, then they should have their referendum and be done with it..
At least they won’t be able to stop the rest of us from moving on..I always opposed a two speed Europe, as it is another division that we must avoid..But since the majority says yes but the minority is blocking the majority’s decisions, then perhaps their politicians should listen to their people and grand their wish..
For the rest of us, a closer union is the only chance of solving the problems…Fiscal,political,military…I totally agree with Protesilaos on his argument, at least on the fiscal union. If we cover up the problems again, and push them under the carpet for once more, what tells us that in the future the Markets won’t find more cracks to exploit and create another fine mess in our continent? Especially when it will be the people that will pay the price once again…Do it, and do it right this time…!!
I beleive that the problem with the European Union is not, if UK should be in or out of it, or should the union be a stronger or weaker fiscal union. I beleive that first we have to solve the political problems rather than the financial problems. Before though we do that we have to ask ourselfs do we want our National flag or the European one. Once we answer to this question then the rest wil be sorted out in a very sort period.
This debate will go on for a long time, I think.
I listened to Cameron’s defense of his veto @ EU Summit during the debate in House of Commons yesterday.
Today I listened to Merkel’s statement to Bundestag on result of EU Summit and the Bundestag debate which followed.
First, it is possible Cameron came to Summit to show his Eurosceptic hand because Whitehall Mandarins had drafted a Resolution (2p) to protect the City from Brussels legislation – Cameron didn’t circulate it, as required, to all EU-27, before the Summit. It was introduced during the debate (after Merkosy met separately with Cameron) on how to revise the Lisbon Treaty with a view to introduce a *fiscal compact*, and it took most of the participants by total surprise.
That’s why the debate lasted into 05hrs next day!
[I’ ve acquired a bad copy of Cameron’s Draft Resolution which was opposed by all 26].
Second, Merkel said today she thinks we’re finally on track to a fiscal union – it will take maybe more than a year or so.
Third, Sarkozy and French political culture will not accept a supra-national diktat on (national) budget process. It’s taboo!
But inter-governmental setup which Merkosy agreed with EU-17 to introduce their *fiscal campact*, after UKs veto, will play right into Sarkozy’s political strategy because it’d be subject to majority vote in Council.
France knows how to avoid EU Commission interference in its internal Parliamentary system. Also ECJ.
Cameron can and will STOP EU-17 from using EU Commission and Council institutions to implement its *fiscal union*, as agreed in principle now by (almost all) 26.
IMO it’d be better to rewrite a Lisbon Treaty.2 with a view to make Lisbon.1 void and redundant by majority decision – legally.
Thereby allowing UK Tories to force a referendum on EU – Yes or NO.
We should absolutely keep UK within the EU. It makes no sense to create new barriers between UK and the rest of the EU. Cameron should reconsider.
It is indeed a pity Cameron decided to use his veto- no principle of solidarity and spite, just because of his right-wing back-benchers. He will regret it, not inside the EU only but back home and already-bad times for the UK. Anyway, the UK has never been in except for the Single Market. People do not understand why we need more fiscal control as cpuntries which were careful do not want to pay for spendtrift countries, people are suffering and there will not be any growth with ensuing social problems, leading to strikes, unemployment, violence. Besides fiscal control, there should be a plan for growth too aseveryone will suffer.whether the UK decides to leave or not is their business- but ot a decision to be taken lightly as will have consequences for everyone, even as Christos M said. going alone without 1 country is a sad thing, but still the EU project must continue and grow stronger as 1 continent, with common roots, better than every country on its own, which still means control. People no longer trust politicians, elected or not.Being in a group means you have to follow some rules and sometimes giving in, not showing bulldozer tactics. After all, the UK has more debt than Greece, luckily it is not in the euro and Moody’s etc, did not downgrade Uk as INSIDE UK
UK it’s an important regional power and if they not agree with Euro-zone policy, it’s their right. For the moment for example I am NOT AT ALL CONVINCED by the Mercozy project, because there are NO MEASURES in the agreement that will guarantee a good course for the project. There are ONLY SIMPLE HOPES. Because of this, financial makets went down in last days. If, for example someone comes and say: EU will be an unique federal state, like US all things are perfectly clear. Some will go in, others will go out. It’s simple and clear. Common laws, army etc, definitely a more stable economy for all and BETTER perspectives for euro. But if EU remains somewhere in-between independent national states and a bigger unified state with new but still messy rules, there are no reasons to hope to better future. In this moment this the Mercozy project is not enough to convince any national state by anything, so I don’t see a good future for it. This is the fear of british.
“I’m not going in without knowing in what I’m going in”. It’s not clear, I stay away and wait to see more, for a good decision. This reasoning seems very ok to me.
A true fiscal union is perhaps the most obvious way out of the eurozone’s crisis, but not the only one. Let me just first note that our crisis essentially consists of three interlinked elements – massive public debt; reckless, overleveraged banking sector; and internal, structural problems of the EU and the eurozone. European leaders have so far tried to tackle just the first of these and to a limited extent also the second (by raising bank capital requirements to 9%). Structural disparities between European economies remain and will remain in place, just as flaws in the monetary union. I believe that the eurozone could have quite worked even without a fiscal union if it were accompanied by a weaker euro that would have not been indexed on par with the former German mark and with a moderate level of European continental protectionism that would have shielded weaker economies from the predatory pricing of cheap Asian imports.
Alas, as numerous commentators never cease to point out, the present measures, based solely on the idea of a strict austerity discipline without tackling the inequalities between European member states, are inadequate and can only plunge the eurozone further into recession. Some therefore argue that what we now need is a federal budget supported by preferably ECB-issued Eurobonds that would make targeted investments into prospective sectors of economy across the whole continent and thus restart the growth by providing new job and business opportunities. Yanis Varoufakis, whose ideas are also supported by the fellow commentator Protesilaos, also points out that such investments do not require a fiscal union and would suffice with a remodelled European Investment Bank that would have the capability to gain required funding by issuing bonds of its own.
Given all this, where do we go now? I do not quite agree with Ivan Mikloš who claims that a fiscal/transfer union is politically unsustainable, because, notably, it would be rejected by European citizens. It is all a question of how would it be proposed and potentially adopted. Would it be again hammered out on the European Council’s meetings behind closed doors or discussed openly with the public? Indeed, not just the eurozone, but the whole integration project is unsustainable in the long term if the people, as the only possible sovereign pouvoir constituent of such a continental union, are not given their say in its making. The EU is now approaching a decisive point when ‘creeping integration’ will be no longer feasible, but that is not the same as the failure of the European project as a whole (although Mr Mikloš and other European politicians are always apt to make us believe so). If a fiscal union were to be rejected by the people, as it very well might be after so much disillusionment with the project, the most natural back-up would be a return to the euro as a common currency unit (CCU) that would be used externally in international trade. Each country could then carry out its own monetary policy and the new CCU would be then measured as a mean of a basket of national currencies. Obviously, there would be several problems with this, such as massive external public debt, now outstanding in weaker currencies. But there would be solutions, such as prior devaluation of the euro as a whole.
Well let’s start off with the ‘average’ British idea of what the euro is. We had a centre left goverment for 13 years in this country, that for the most part liked and supported Europe. However during this time they failed to explain in laymans terms why European membership was a good thing for our country. By the time it was a real issue i.e. When our tabloids started spouting hate about immigrates ‘taking’ people’s jobs. This led to people knowing little about what the EU really is and what you don’t understand, you fear and what you fear you hate. This has led to a sisyphean task of extolling the virtues of the union which has fallen on deaf ears.
This is why, if a referendum is called, Britan will vote to leave the EU. It is an unfortunate fact and the conservative government had one planned in their manifesto. So if they stick to their word than Britan will leave.
I for one forgetting about the seen benefits would rather pay for politicians to argue about the sugar content of orange juice rather that facing possible war on contenant. Europe has tied the interests of these countries together and has made war unthinkable.
Make not mistakes though, the powers that the conservatives want back are for the most part ones that are badly drafted such as the working time directive and the common fisheries policy. These make for a very valid argument but are the tip of an iceberg and if granted the floodgates would open and this would almost certainly lead to another situation where the UK disappears into the Atlantic. I would like to see these policies reformed but certainly when this whole mess has been resolved and not before.
Churchill told De Gaulle we British would always choose the open sea over Europe..and the day is coming when Britain will leave the EU…and be the better for it..
Britain will leave the EU , i can’t bloody wait . You want to destroy the biggest finincial centre in the world (London ) by slapping a finincial tax on it , it makes no sense to keep propping up the failing Euro , it is eventually going to fail . Why do you simply not get this ? Monetary unions never work you bunch of deluded undemocratic idiots .
@Miguel Us British love Europe , we want trade and to be friends with our European partners but we do not want to be part of the political union which is looking more like Hitlers dream everyday . Why can’t the EU just be like the common market and be about trade ?
Luke, Norway has similar relations with Europe…But there is a democratic deficit..A huge one..Because while Norway has to follow a lot of EU regulations as part of the single Market, EEA, Schengen agreement etc, the people of Norway have absolute no influence whatsoever, no votes or a say in those laws and regulations, as they do not have a seat in the European Parliament…Also they have to pay into the EU’s budget as a member of EEA, but they have no say on how these money are spent..They have no voice in EU….the only influence they have is with lobbying and delegations in Brussels, something like you will have if you leave..
But the people of Norway, the ordinary citizens, have no say AT ALL…!! their elites have traded the votes and voice of their people, for less contribution into the EU budget…less democracy for less cash..Norway nevertheless is an oil rich country and only 4 million people…you on the other hand, are a country of almost 60 million people, and if you were more involved you could have a huge influence in European politics..You have the most seats in the European Parliament together with France and Germany…if you were clever enough not to send clowns like the BNP and UKIP in the EP, that they do not do any constructive contribution in Europe’s politics, rather keep ranting their thatcherisms all the time, using populist mantras, then you may have actually find your EU membership rather more positive.
if we allow EU to become only a trading block, then we, the people, the ordinary citizens will have no voice, no votes, no influence in it.because the EP will not exist anymore..our leaders will keep making deals between them, as it happens now more or less, but we will be kept out of them…in fact the best thing that could happen for European people, is unification under a strong and fully functional EP..we must vote for the future of our continent collectively..but with attitudes like yours, we never get there…
why? because some people are so thick and brainwashed by their own media and governments, that think democracy can exist only on national level..never on an international one..well where is it in Europe, because i haven’t seen much lately in any state…we, the people protest about austerity in pan European level, yet our Governments ignore us completely… OUR GOVERNMENTS…our own Governments that we vote on a national level…so the problem lies there…what we should be doing, is uniting and decide our future collectively…
http://eblanademocraticmove.blogspot.com/2011/12/british-veto-and-future-of-eu.html there is a little link to help you how you are being misled by you own politicians, to keep you in ignorance about the benefits of UK’s EU membership..all this misinformation is done on purpose, never to allow the populace to engage with EU and European politics, manipulate the voters and whenever suits inflamate the public with unltranationalist propaganda..exactly as you do now…if the European people actually were united, we could have achieve so much more. not as a nation…not as a superpower..that does not interest me….but to achieve equality, stability, prosperity, peace and equal opportunities for all nations of Europe..
while we are divided, there is always instability and every few decades in bursts in wars or as we recently see, economic crisis..then people like you thrive and make the populace go ultranationalist, promising them the security they knew when they were a nation state..but in a globalized world, that is not possible anymore…so either we reverse what we , us Europeans have started with colonization ( you among the most prominent ones) or we unite to stop the abuses of our Governments towards us….divided in smaller nations we are weaker….
but your elites do not want that…because that will mean less power and money for them….so they have you little brainwashed chess pieces, to do the work for them….complain about the eastern Europeans coming and “stealing” british jobs, while Britain and other rich nations of Europe are the reasons that their countries are poor…because you suck up all industrial activity on the continent..so where do you expect the eastern Europeans to go..? where there is industrial activity and get a job, that means your countries…the problem is you, not them…once you get that, you will understand that the problem lies with your national governments that you so much want to keep in place, to remind you the greatness of your nation and all the past glories…as if if you allowed more democracy in Europe, Britain and its achievements as a nation would be diminished by power sharing with all other nations of Europe…and when i call you bigots, you protest….go figure….!!!
A common market was never the aim…a single state was the sole objective..and we are waking up to such a threat..
WHY all this doom and gloom ONLY about Europe? How about looking at the REAL data for the US and so-called “united” kingdom.
For example… there is all this catastrophologia about how Europe will need to find around one trillion Euros to recapitalize the EU banks and help bail out Italy, Portugal and Greece and yet THERE IS NO MENTION THAT THE FED HAS “SECRETLY” ALREADY GIVEN OVER 17 TRILLION – YES, 17 TRILLION – DOLLARS TO MOSTLY US/UK BANKS!!!
check out page 131…
http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf
We have heard soooo much about the total debt of Greece being a disastrous 120 to an artificially inflated 160% of GDP and yet NOTHING ABOUT THE TRUE TOTAL DEBT OF THE US AND UK which makes the EU debt seem like pultry, petty cash!
“The primary reason that Cameron vetoed the thing was that he’s defending the interests of the bankers in the City, who do not wish to be regulated, least of all by the EU.
Just the REAL DEBT of UK banks is over 500% of GDP!!!!! There are some very, VERY big fat social-economic chickens coming home to roost for the “special relationship” AND NO AMOUNT of trying to “sex up” or “blame it on the Euro” is going to make them go away!
WAKE UP YOU SILLY SHEEPLE…