Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 14 2012, 10:34 AM

Anyone else wanting the whole EURO fiasco to fail?? And soon.
I see the Germans are prepared - Deutsche Marks already printed and ready to go.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 14 2012, 10:38 AM

I guess if its going to happen the sooner the better really

Posted by: Jayjay May 14 2012, 10:38 AM

Haven't heardvthat. If euro fails would not be a surprise. Thank god for Mr Brown that we didn't enter that muddle.

Would the failure have any effect on us?

Posted by: JeffG May 14 2012, 10:45 AM

No, I don't actively want the euro to fail. What would be the point in wishing that? I suppose it would give the rabid euro-sceptics the chance to say "I told you so", but that doesn't help the economic mess.

I was always in favour of the single currency in the past, but now have come to the conclusion that it is a failed experiment that will rapidly disintegrate after Greece is forced out. Locking disparate economies into a single interest rate just doesn't work.

Edit: Yes, Jayjay, failure of the euro would have a huge effect on us. There would be an economic collapse in the eurozone. Countries in the eurozone are our main export market. I leave you to do the sums.

Edit #2: You can probably replace "would" with "will" in the above.

Posted by: Bloggo May 14 2012, 12:06 PM

The single currency was only ever going to work with a single government. That's where it was all leading but public pressure in some countries and economic problems in others have put paid to that and wee should be grateful.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2012, 12:34 PM

In what way would our exports be affected?

Posted by: dannyboy May 14 2012, 12:39 PM

Greece is declared bankrupt. Greeks have less spare cash, so buy less. Imports to the contry fall. Some of those imports would have been exports from the UK.

Posted by: Roger T May 14 2012, 12:42 PM

Isn't it true that, the UK buys in far more than they export so, largely, will be uneffected.
Sort of like a reduction in people buying Aubergines at Sainsburys... Hardly anyone purchases them so if demand was reduced Sainsburys wouldn't really lose any money... they'd just lose the nectar (points).

Posted by: Squelchy May 14 2012, 12:44 PM

Where did you see that please?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2012, 12:51 PM

I'm not sure they have much spare cash at the moment anyway. What do we export to them?

Olive oil will get cheaper!

Posted by: dannyboy May 14 2012, 01:02 PM

I don't know what we actually send them, but in 2010 it was worth £343million to the UK economy. That was a drop of 23% from 2008's total.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 14 2012, 01:12 PM

I know someone who is involved with the printing!

De La Rue

Teutonic efficiency means they will be ready to go whenever they make the decision.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 14 2012, 01:13 PM

Also:

http://www.arabianmoney.net/us-dollar/2011/11/27/germany-printing-deutsche-marks-british-foreign-office-warns-of-euro-chaos/

Posted by: dannyboy May 14 2012, 01:19 PM

A 6 month old news article.

Greece has to repay its next debt instalment on December 17th so a pre-Christmas financial market crash is very likely now

must have missed that.

What is the source of the claim that Germany is printing Deutsche Marks and that the British Foreign Office has issued warnings to its embassies?

Ed Note: Latter from Daily Telegraph and do a Google Search on the DM – they would have issued a denial by now if it was not true.

That old Chestnut - thay have not denied it so it must be true. This must be wjy 'Arabianmoney' is such a well know & trusted source of finanical news.

Posted by: Squelchy May 14 2012, 01:54 PM

I thought so.

The rumor started with the now infamous speech, in or around October last year, by Dr. Pippa Malmgren.

Other than that, we're left with "oh, but I heard it from a friend....."

Posted by: JeffG May 14 2012, 02:47 PM

Well, I think if Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Finland etc. etc. have no spare cash because their economies have collapsed, I'd have thought it was self-evident that exports to our main trading partners would suffer.

Posted by: blackdog May 14 2012, 04:08 PM

£343 million? It can't be that low - billion surely?

According to http://tutor2u.net/blog/files/EU_Revision_UK_Trade_with_EU.pdf - admittedly old data (2008) our trade deficit with the EU was £45 billion. But 57% of our exports were to the EU. So it's a mixed story, devaluing of ex-euro currencies would help reduce the deficit by lowering the cost of imports; whereas the reduction of ex-Euro economies would reduce the amount they have available to spend on our products.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2012, 04:09 PM

Who are our main trading (export) partners and are we not taking strategic action already by forging other trade relationships outside the Euro zone?

Posted by: dannyboy May 14 2012, 04:14 PM

I hope it isn't £343 billion - the UK exports were only a grand total of £430 billion worth in 2010. I hate the greeks to be 80% of that.....

Exports to the ailing economies of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain have suffered steep declines, according to a study published today. The falls underline the challenges facing the government, which hopes to rebalance the UK economy and use exports to drive future growth.

The study by Close Brothers, based on public trade data, says that the value of UK exports to the five countries plunged by 16% to £9.2bn between the second quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of this year.

The fall accounted for almost half of a general 6.6% drop in UK exports over the same period, the merchant bank said.

"The plight of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain has been well documented and the UK's exporters have been hit hard by this," said Mark Taylor, head of foreign exchange at Close Treasury, a unit of Close Brothers.

The fall comes despite an 11% drop in the value of sterling against the euro over the same period, making British products more affordable abroad.

Exports to Greece plunged by 23%, to only £343m, while sales to Ireland, Britain's biggest trading partner in the group, fell by 20% to £3.8bn, from £4.7bn in 2008. Deals with Spain fell by 10.5% to £2.4bn.

Posted by: blackdog May 14 2012, 04:18 PM

Aah - £343 million is just to Greece.

I wonder how much we buy from them?

Posted by: dannyboy May 14 2012, 04:22 PM

The above quote was from a 2010 article in the Grauinad. According to the F&CO =

Greece is the UK's 34th largest export market (2010 ranking). The value of exports of British goods to Greece was £1.12 billion in 2011, , while Greek imports to the UK stood at £645 million

whos' figures are the most accurate I wonder?

Posted by: Nothing Much May 14 2012, 05:11 PM

Well I can tell you that both the Turkish areas of London and the Greek shops.
Separated by about 4 miles and several gangs, are always full of watermelons.
ce

Posted by: JeffG May 14 2012, 07:43 PM

Fascinating factoid of the day

Posted by: Nothing Much May 14 2012, 08:02 PM

They are very big ones. Sort of like the guns they carry.
ce

Posted by: dannyboy May 14 2012, 11:54 PM

Do they pump the watermelons full of water for that true 'third world' taste?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 15 2012, 12:23 AM

On a TV program earlier, Michael Portillo asked various Greek and German politicians, business people, and citizens: would they like their old currency back? None did.

Posted by: Blake May 15 2012, 11:59 AM

The invention of the single currency was a classic example of will-against-reason doctrinaire policy making by a very small number of ideologically driven bureaucrats and a small number of elected people.

The sheer disparity of economies ranging from Portugal and Greece to Germany set of my alarm bells from the very start. It was a dumb attempt to square a circle amid the vision of a "United Europe". The vision was an impossible one, but the bureaucrats and pro-euro zealots just dig the hole ever-deeper.

Posted by: Squelchy May 15 2012, 04:06 PM

As I'm sure you know, those 'arguments' sound exactly like the ones put forward in North America when it was decided it might be a good idea if each state stopped making it's own money and all the States just had one currency between them.

Posted by: JeffG May 15 2012, 04:11 PM

I can't help wondering, though, how the US manages with a single currency. Different parts of the US are certainly not equal in their economies, and the populations are roughly the same (300m odd).

Edit: Ha! Same thought at the same time!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 15 2012, 04:35 PM

The US has one federal government to enforce fiscal discipline?

Posted by: Newbelly May 15 2012, 04:51 PM

Correct in the main.

I think the political history of the US is too different from that of Europe to make a useful comparison regarding currencies.

Where in Europe would we like the Euro federal reserve to be situated? Historically, one could argue Rome or Athens?

Posted by: dannyboy May 15 2012, 07:27 PM

And they all speak the same language, have total social mobility & all had a good civil war to iron out any differences.

Posted by: Newbelly May 15 2012, 07:31 PM

Take your points, but Spanish has made some inroads in one or two states.

Posted by: dannyboy May 15 2012, 07:35 PM

Spanish was already there.

The Americans kicked out the Mexicans, then claimed the area as their own & called it 'Texas'.

Posted by: Newbelly May 15 2012, 07:53 PM

Hence, they do not "all speak the same language" in the US.

The increase in Spanish has come about as a result of immigration, post formation.

Posted by: dannyboy May 15 2012, 08:33 PM

oh yes & the Mafia speak Italian.

You forgot the plains algonquian too.


But on the wole I think you find that, apart from Puerto Rico, English is the language of the USA. It helps when trying to Unify States.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 15 2012, 08:38 PM

Notwithstanding, they achieved their sovereignty at our expense!

Posted by: dannyboy May 15 2012, 08:41 PM

We did get to burn the White House down in 1814. And most of the rest of Washington.

Posted by: Newbelly May 15 2012, 09:10 PM

Around 40 million people in the US speak Spanish as their first language and it is growing. Of course, US English is dominant (especially in politics and finance) but it is wrong to dismiss those who speak Spanish, as the language was, as you say, "already there".

Posted by: dannyboy May 15 2012, 09:12 PM

I'm not dismissing it. Just saying that one of the fundamental reasons that the USA works as a united states is the unity of language.

Despite the huge influs of immigrants in the 1900s, English is still the language of the USA.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 15 2012, 09:35 PM

...

Posted by: Newbelly May 15 2012, 09:36 PM

US English is the dominant language of the US.

But, in the last 3 business trips I have made to California, I have noticed how many more TV channels are in Spanish.

If unity of language is so important, then why can't we have it in EU politics - so as to stop the hundreds of millions of Euros spent on translation!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 15 2012, 09:38 PM

Cheaper to translate it than to teach it.

Posted by: dannyboy May 15 2012, 09:39 PM

because we have 2000 years of doing things our own way & the Americnas have barley 200 years of doing things together, little differences apart.

Posted by: Newbelly May 15 2012, 09:44 PM

So, going back to my original point, a common currency in Europe is not the same as in the US because of different history.

Posted by: dannyboy May 16 2012, 10:11 AM

Language & History go hand in hand.

Posted by: Newbelly May 17 2012, 07:21 PM

History has an impact on currencies too. The US Dollar is a strong currency, the Euro now looks like a mistake.

Posted by: spartacus May 17 2012, 07:32 PM

Thank goodness we're out of the Euro mess and have our huge gold reserves to rely on if and when the world's economies go completely belly up.......







Doh!!

Posted by: Newbelly May 17 2012, 08:14 PM

Perhaps he is just trying to remember where he left his moral compass. Just a shame he never had an economic compass.

Posted by: Jayjay May 18 2012, 07:24 AM

I know. Under Gordon Brown unemployment reached a 16 year high, we have a double dip recession, Police and medical profession numbers are reduced, the country's deficit has risen despite austerity measures ........

Posted by: Squelchy May 18 2012, 07:39 AM

He's the one who kept us out of Europe for all those years. That was a bad thing was it?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 18 2012, 07:50 AM

Cack - He'd have had us in the EURO if he thought he'd of won a referendum. He knew the British people would have told him to naff off. This whole crisis has the 1930s written all over it.

"When nations are strong, they are not always just and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong." Winston Churchill

Posted by: Newbelly May 18 2012, 07:50 AM

We are, last time I looked, most definately in Europe (and in the EU).

If you are referring to the Euro currency, it was the British public (mostly right of centre) that "kept us out".

Posted by: Rusty Bullet May 18 2012, 08:41 AM

Funny how you always hark back to the 1930's Them was the days huh?


I suspect you mean 'definitely'.


When were we asked then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/nov/24/john-major-davidcameron

Posted by: Newbelly May 18 2012, 09:06 AM

Sorry for the typo - may I point out there was one in your post as well...

Back on topic:

Public opinon was clear that the UK should not join the Euro - repeated opinion polls confirmed that.

Posted by: Penelope May 19 2012, 01:56 PM

I was going to Greece on a cheap holiday, now I think I can buy the country for about the same amount.

Posted by: Jayjay May 19 2012, 02:20 PM

Are we talking about the same referendum that the tories made a pledge about on the husting and the lib dems had in their manifesto?

Posted by: Penelope May 19 2012, 03:36 PM

That's the very one.

Posted by: Newbelly May 19 2012, 03:47 PM

I thought the referendum that the Tories ducked was about the Lisbon Treaty (greater integration) - not really about us joining the Euro, which is what I thought TDH's post was on about?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 19 2012, 05:11 PM

And repaid that debt several-fold when they saved our **** (or should that be ***) in the second world war.

Posted by: Newbelly May 19 2012, 05:32 PM

Indeed, but they did give us a bill for WW2, which we finally paid off in 2006!

Edit:
Before anybody gets angry with me, I am not talking here about all those brave souls who gave their lives in the war.

Posted by: Ron May 19 2012, 05:50 PM

[quote name='Newbelly' date='May 19 2012, 06:32 PM' post='61518']
Indeed, but they did give us a bill for WW2, which we finally paid off in 2006!

And they only joined then because the Japs gave them a smacking!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 19 2012, 06:10 PM

America was always going to have to defend it's Pacific interests against Japanese imperial agression, though it had no good reason to support the Brits in a European campaign - don't forget that very many Americans have German and Italian heritage. It wasn't even a given that Blighty would oppose Germany, we shared much in common, not least a royal family, so it was a significant decision for the Americans to join the war on our side.

Posted by: Newbelly May 19 2012, 06:21 PM

That's a fair point, although I would say that many Americans have a British heritage too. Back in the 1940s, we were world class when it came to intelligence gathering (and code-breaking) and it has been speculated that Churchill had more warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor than was passed on.

Posted by: blackdog May 20 2012, 12:36 AM

The German's didn't have a royal family in 1941 - hadn't done for over 20 years.

And it was the Russians that won the war in Europe - by the time we got to D-day the German's had already lost, the Anglo American invasions just shortened the war by a few months, a year at most.

Posted by: Berkshirelad May 20 2012, 05:55 PM

They gave us a very, very long-term loan, known as Lease/Lend.

This was the only way that the US Executive could support us without Congress actually declaring War on the Axis.

Likewise in the Falklands War, we had a great deal of support from the USA, but done in ways to circumvent Congress.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 20 2012, 06:13 PM

You're right of course, it was a poor argument. Throughout the preceding 1500 years the common ancestry of the ruling houses of Europe did little to promote peace, and in many cases did much to promote war.


Not so convinced about that. Yes, the Russians fought their own way to berlin, but it's impossible to treat that campaign in isolation from the Allies' efforts in North Africa and the Mediterranean, and General Patton never really felt that the Germans were the enemy, he would have much prefered to fight the Russains.

Posted by: dannyboy May 20 2012, 06:18 PM

Patton was ritght. We spent the next 50 years fighting the Russians.

We went to war in 1939 because Poland was invaded. It was still under foreign rule in 1945. What was pointless war.

Posted by: Cognosco May 20 2012, 06:45 PM

I believe is was a good war for some of the arms manufacturers? just as wars are today. Arms sales keeps a lot of countries profitable.

Posted by: dannyboy May 20 2012, 07:03 PM

LOL,


So, subsidy is good then?

Posted by: Cognosco May 20 2012, 07:19 PM

War is better...for some at least!

Posted by: Squelchy May 20 2012, 10:15 PM

What Patton said was:

"H3ll, why do we care what those god-d@mn Russians think? We are going to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation. Why not do it now while our Army is intact and the d@mn Russians can have their hind end kicked back to Russia in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the German troops we have, if we just arm them and take them with us. They hate the bast@rds."

Patton also ordered the killing of German POWs while surrendering because he said they could "not be trusted." So, in one breath he has surrendering Germans shot because they can't be trusted, and in the next says we should arm them and get them to fight alongside us against the Russians.

Seems level-headed to me.


The film "Patton - Lust for Glory" should not be taken as an accurate historical reference work.

This, however, is probably a bit more accurate:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/twogeneral.aspx

Posted by: blackdog May 21 2012, 10:07 AM

The North African campaign was a sideshow for the Germans - while the Eastern Front exhausted them using up men and resources at an unsustainable rate. Stalingrad and Kursk shattered the German Army in 1943 - it never recovered from those two battles and never again had the resources to mount an offensive, from then on they were always on the defensive.

Of course the campaigns in Africa, Italy & France, the bombing campaign and the naval blockade all helped win the war, but it was Russia that did the most damage - they deserve far more credit in the West for their contribution to beating Hitler. Of course they were led by a man every bit as nasty and paranoid as Hitler - and we spent the next 40/50 years looking on them as The Enemy, so it's not so easy to be grateful to them. There is also the point that they too invaded Poland in 1939 and so should have been our enemy from then as well as Germany if we had fully honoured the treaty with Poland.

Posted by: dannyboy May 21 2012, 11:11 AM

Keeps people employed, so they can keep spending, so the economy is kept healthy.....

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 21 2012, 01:04 PM

We need a good World War to help manage the population of the world. The planet could do with losing a few billion human beings.

Posted by: dannyboy May 21 2012, 01:29 PM

You'll be at the front of the queue to sign up then?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 21 2012, 02:23 PM

Yep. A World War or a major plague. Thats what this planet needs. Do you not agree then? What's your solution to the ever expanding numbers of the infestation of this planet by the putrid human kind.

Posted by: dannyboy May 21 2012, 02:27 PM

Surely if you believe this you should be setting a good example yourself?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 21 2012, 02:39 PM

Well - I've just been to Porton Down to get my airborn Ebola. I'll drop it round your place later.

Posted by: dannyboy May 21 2012, 03:47 PM

You mean 1 billion dead other than yourself? How thoughtful of you.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 21 2012, 03:51 PM

Nah - You can include me if you like. As long as I sneezed on you.

Posted by: Penelope May 21 2012, 04:00 PM

Now now, play nicely boys.

Posted by: Newbelly May 21 2012, 04:10 PM

If I can begin to steer things back to topic....

An ageing population is a huge issue for us, but also for China where their "1 baby" policy is leaving them with a huge care issue. I saw the other day (on a TV programme) that there are c.100,000 people employed as "carers" in China, estimates suggest they need 10 Million.

Back in Europe, what legacy is being left to the young? Is not that all the more reason that we get things sorted now and not simply pass on the debt?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 21 2012, 04:13 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka

"I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it... I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us... We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that."

Posted by: Cognosco May 21 2012, 07:48 PM

Nature always seems to find a way to control a species that gets out of control. Mother nature develops a new strain of something that lives off of the species that is getting out of control. Virus or bacteria will control the humans species one way or another I suspect, if lobbing nuclear missiles at one another doesn't do it first of course?