Thread: Should Britain adopt the Euro?

Howdy from - a Wolfhound, too.
gfonz@sbcglobal.net

Originally Posted by Shiny Capstar

One thing I don't like about the Euro is that the coins are very low quality (at least I think they are).

I've yet to see one permanently damaged. They're just as good as D-Mark coins and - since they also used the double-metal in the 10 FF coin - French Franc coins. Not really a wonder, considering they're from the same factories.

My opinion:

As long as the UK does not join certain EU treaties - full Schengen, Maastricht etc - it can not and should not be treated as a full valuable core member of the EU, but merely as an adjunct. Like Poland, or Romania. Actually, considering the UK does not contribute to Eurocorps, there should be even a bit more disdain than for Poland. Whether it wants to be treated like that - its own choice. No one's forcing them into anything after all. There's a number of good reasons the UK is never included in any considerations for a "Core Europe". And the Euro, nowadays, is one of them.

Originally Posted by ChrisF202

Why would a nation want to willingly give up their sovereignty and self determination to something like the EU?

Did they learn nothing from Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Ceausescu, and Stalin?

Well it is because of those guys that the EU was created, for the most part. The theory behind the European Coal and Steel Community (the predecessor to the EC which became the EU) was that states that trade with which other would be less inclined to go to war (particularly France, and Germany). Coal and steel were also used in weapons and other war-making production, so in theory the more they traded the less likely those states would go to war with which other.

Theories of functionalism and mostly neo-functionalism hold that the more integrated a region becomes the less likely it will be to devolve into war, or other problems, as states decrease in importance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofunctionalism

Hence you have the EU, and yes it undermines sovereignty, but some believe it also keeps Europe from war or economic competition. Whether that is the case, or if it is something else like the existence of nuclear weapons, or the US security guarantees via NATO is a matter of debate. So far, so good though, and what does any organization or entity do that has succeeded in its short-term goals; it expands.

So now areas that 40 or 50 years ago would have been controversial: cooperation on security and defense, and a unified currency, are not anymore. The question is though is there a limit to the cooperation of these states, and there is some popular resistance to the idea of a framed European constitution, and a singular currency-UK, Denmark, Sweden-but whether that lasts I cannot say.

For now though the UK is not hurt by not adopting the Euro, so it should keep the pound for a while longer. I think the UK has had a distinct identity from Europe itself, and may want to keep it that way. As our friend from Germany, kato, has suggested the UK could be excluded from a "core Europe", but I don't think the British would mind that too much.

Originally Posted by kato

Actually, considering the UK does not contribute to Eurocorps, there should be even a bit more disdain than for Poland. Whether it wants to be treated like that - its own choice. No one's forcing them into anything after all. There's a number of good reasons the UK is never included in any considerations for a "Core Europe". And the Euro, nowadays, is one of them.

And yet it's sixth in contributions per capita and second in total contributions behind Germany. not something to be sneezed at.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

The theory behind the European Coal and Steel Community (the predecessor to the EC which became the EU) was that states that trade with which other would be less inclined to go to war (particularly France, and Germany). Coal and steel were also used in weapons and other war-making production, so in theory the more they traded the less likely those states would go to war with which other.

I was under the impression that the theory behind the ECSC that if the coal and steel resources were regulated by the same body, it would make future wars more unlikely.

Originally Posted by kato

I've yet to see one permanently damaged. They're just as good as D-Mark coins and - since they also used the double-metal in the 10 FF coin - French Franc coins. Not really a wonder, considering they're from the same factories.

Well, the Euro I think can be said to be the DM writ large. The Euro notes even resemble the old DM notes.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

And yet it's sixth in contributions per capita and second in total contributions behind Germany. not something to be sneezed at.

Indeed. It's basically mostly the non-economic issues in which the UK voluntarily distances itself from Core Europe.

Some of it is of course simply a function of geographic factors and basic political leanings. No need for Schengen, all transit to the rest of Europe channels through few points anyway. Social politics, Amsterdam treaty, has been resolved under Blair. Maastricht - well, there's the Pound. And the UK would of course be forced to strive for a better-balanced budget with less debt.

Originally Posted by Ironduke

The Euro notes even resemble the old DM notes.

Only the intermediate DM notes used since 1995 or so (BBK3A series). The 1961-1963 issue had a much more... classic design. I liked them more too :P

Originally Posted by Ironduke

I was under the impression that the theory behind the ECSC that if the coal and steel resources were regulated by the same body, it would make future wars more unlikely.

The (fully intentional) effect was that France would have free access to the british-controlled (non-ECSC) Ruhrpott.
And yes, the theory was that mutual control of war resources would ensure peace. And that bringing the Ruhrpott and Saarland (after all, the two areas this was all about) under ECSC control and essentially kicking out the British control board would really kick off postwar rebuilding (as it did).

Originally Posted by kato

I've yet to see one permanently damaged. They're just as good as D-Mark coins and - since they also used the double-metal in the 10 FF coin - French Franc coins. Not really a wonder, considering they're from the same factories.

My opinion:

As long as the UK does not join certain EU treaties - full Schengen, Maastricht etc - it can not and should not be treated as a full valuable core member of the EU, but merely as an adjunct. Like Poland, or Romania. Actually, considering the UK does not contribute to Eurocorps, there should be even a bit more disdain than for Poland. Whether it wants to be treated like that - its own choice. No one's forcing them into anything after all. There's a number of good reasons the UK is never included in any considerations for a "Core Europe". And the Euro, nowadays, is one of them.

Unfortunately you are perfectly right. I want Britain either in Europe to the full, or out - to the full. Having one foot in and one foot out simply does not work.