Denmark - THINK before you vote!
Giles Allen
English and not Danish.
Think yourselves lucky that you are amongst a small group of people in
Europe who are being given the opportunity to decide whether or not to adopt
the Euro. Many would like a vote, but few have been given one, their
Governments for whatever reason deciding to deny them a say on what is one
of the most important issues for generations.
Before voting, consider the following points: -
1) Are you in favour of a Federal Europe or European Super State? - If not
then why take a major step towards it by giving away your countries
financial independence.
2) Think beyond the Euro - It's not just a case of different money in your
pocket, it's everything that goes with it.
2.1) Interest rates - These will be determined in Frankfurt supposedly at
the 'appropriate' level for the whole of Euroland. As Ireland is finding out
at the moment, this can leave you seriously disadvantaged. Questions also
have to be asked why France was so insistent on having a French citizen as
the next head of the European Central Bank. Would it be to look after French
interests above all others?
2.2) Tax - There will be serious implications regarding tax. It wouldn't be
long before Europe would be setting this across Euroland. Given Europe's
record on waste and mismanagement, together with its aspirations for
explanation into the poorer East, taxes would inevitably have to go up to
subsidise their economies.
2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large numbers
haven't made proper provision for their old age and will encounter many
problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest of Euroland to pay
for this?
3) Don't believe the politicians when they tell you that Denmark will have
more influence in the future of Europe. If anything it will have less.
Especially with increased majority voting and the expansion into the East.
4) Denmark's government reduced to a local council - With the Euro your
government will be surrendering a huge part of its decision making process
to Europe. Do you trust European politicians enough to make decisions that
will affect your everyday life and standard of living even more than it does
now? If you are unhappy with these politicians, will it be easy to do
anything about it?
5) Once you're in the Euro there is NO way back - NO second chance. Like or
lump it you're stuck with it and anything else that Europe decides is 'in
your interest'.
It's your choice. If you're in doubt and you're not sure how to vote, isn't
it better to vote NEJ now and live for another day, rather than turn down
that one way street that leads to the Franco-German goal of a United States
of Europe and forever regret your decision?
Don't waste your vote - Vote NEJ and keep Denmark's independence.
Giles Allen
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<8q8056$giv$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>Firstly, I would like to apologise for having to type this message in
>English and not Danish.
>Think yourselves lucky that you are amongst a small group of people in
>Europe who are being given the opportunity to decide whether or not to
>adopt the Euro. Many would like a vote, but few have been given one,
>their Governments for whatever reason deciding to deny them a say on
>what is one of the most important issues for generations.
Then maybe you should elect another government? Besides, I thought you were
going to have a referendum shortly after the next general election?
> Before voting, consider the following points: -
>1) Are you in favour of a Federal Europe or European Super State? - If
>not then why take a major step towards it by giving away your countries
>financial independence.
This is bullshit. As the president for the European Monetary Bank said just
two days ago, the existence of a common European currency does _not_ mean
that there will have to be any further steps towards a political union.
Such political integration may come, but it has nothing to do with the €.
>2) Think beyond the Euro - It's not just a case of different money in
>your pocket, it's everything that goes with it.
>2.1) Interest rates - These will be determined in Frankfurt supposedly
>at the 'appropriate' level for the whole of Euroland. As Ireland is
>finding out at the moment, this can leave you seriously disadvantaged.
>Questions also have to be asked why France was so insistent on having a
>French citizen as the next head of the European Central Bank. Would it
>be to look after French interests above all others?
This is nothing new. Since 1983 Danish interest rates have been determined
in Frankfurt. This is the result of the fixed exchange rate, which the wast
majority on both sides in the present campaign want's to maintain.
But the € does make a difference for the interest rate. Right now the
Danish interest rates are about 0.6 percent-point higher than the interest-
rate in the €-countries. Yestoday we had this horrible opinion pool giving
the no-side a big lead. As a result the interest-rate jumped 0.11% up. This
was the highest increase on any day during this year.
In case of a yes at the referendum the difference between the danish and
the €-interestrate will very soon drop to about 0.15%. In case of a no, we
will see a jump upwards and a long-term difference about 0.7%. (Between the
two referendums in 1992 and 1993 the difference was 1.9%).
For an average family the difference between 0.15% and 0.7% makes a
difference of something like 800 € each year (cash after tax).
>2.2) Tax - There will be serious implications regarding tax. It wouldn't
>be long before Europe would be setting this across Euroland. Given
>Europe's record on waste and mismanagement, together with its
>aspirations for explanation into the poorer East, taxes would inevitably
>have to go up to subsidise their economies.
Bullshit, bullshit. There is no reason, why the € should have any results
on taxes.
It is true of course that we do and will see a tendency to tax-
harmonisation. E.g. Denmark has just reduced the compagny-tax to bring it
more in line with the levels in other countries. We will within the next
two years also see a reduction on the tax on alcohol and tobacco.
But this is all a result of the internal marked, which we joined in 1986.
It has _nothing_ to do with the €. Besides, most people here would _love_
to see further harmonising of tax-rates ;-)
>2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large
>numbers haven't made proper provision for their old age and will
>encounter many problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest
>of Euroland to pay for this?
What you say about Germany is a shameless lie. It is correct that the
Germans have some problem with financing their pensions. The reason for
this is that German pensions are very high (much higher than British or
Danish), because Germans retire rather early (58 to 60 years) and because
they have relatively few children. But there is no sign what so ever that
the Germans should not be able to take care of this.
Besides you could say the same about Denmark, as our pensions are paid via
tax, which means that there is nothing like a "provision".
>3) Don't believe the politicians when they tell you that Denmark will
>have more influence in the future of Europe. If anything it will have
>less. Especially with increased majority voting and the expansion into
>the East.
Denmark will indeed have more influence than we have now. Most important
our interest rate is, as I told you, being determined in Frankfurt. It is
of course vital for us to get influence on the way this is done, and one
vote out of sixteen is more than zero votes.
>4) Denmark's government reduced to a local council - With the Euro your
>government will be surrendering a huge part of its decision making
>process to Europe. Do you trust European politicians enough to make
>decisions that will affect your everyday life and standard of living
>even more than it does now? If you are unhappy with these politicians,
>will it be easy to do anything about it?
You really don't seem to understand anything. No additional decision making
is being transferred. In contrast to the UK, we have had fixed exchange
rates since 1983 and we are a member of ERMII. Therefore the transfer of
decision making was done long ago.
Now we have to gain the fruits of this, lower interest rates and influence
on the way the decisions are made.
>5) Once you're in the Euro there is NO way back - NO second chance. Like
>or lump it you're stuck with it and anything else that Europe decides is
>'in your interest'.
First of all this is not correct. If we wanted to, we could simply leave
the EU. But more important, why should we want to do that. In 1972 about
37% voted no to joining the EC. In a vote about that today, the no-side
would hardly get 10%. In 1986 about 40% voted no to the inner marked. Today
we can hear the very same people say that they have no intention to ever
leave that, and you can hear leading people on the no-side claim that "even
if we vote no to the €, we will of course stay in the inner marked, nobody
would like to leave that". Most of the no-side even wants Denmark to stay
within the ERMII and maintain the fixed exchange rates.
Therefore I am pretty sure that after a yes at the referendum, nobody will
ever seriously want to leave again. The problem simply seems to be that the
people on the no-side think slower ;-)
>It's your choice. If you're in doubt and you're not sure how to vote,
>isn't it better to vote NEJ now and live for another day, rather than
>turn down that one way street that leads to the Franco-German goal of a
>United States of Europe and forever regret your decision?
Yes it is our choice, and it would be wonderful if you would respect that
and stop making British internal politics at our cost.
--
Lars Jørgen Helbo <la...@helbo.com>
http://mrohs-helbo.homepage.dk
http://haurumsall.cjb.net
http://www.salldata.dk
jdc
> This is bullshit. As the president for the European Monetary Bank said
just
> two days ago, the existence of a common European currency does _not_ mean
> that there will have to be any further steps towards a political union.
And as *you* said two days ago - what would he know, he's a banker. Consider
on the other hand the following;
"The introduction of the euro was a profoundly political act. We must put
into place the last brick in the building of European integration. There
must be a translation from a union of states to a federation."
- Joschka Fischer - German Foreign Minister.
"The times of individual national efforts regarding employment policies,
social and tax policies are definitely over".
- Gerhard Schroeder.
Wim Duisenberg, before he was under pressure to help the Danish campaign,
has also told the truth
"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with
piolitical integration. EMU is, and was always meant to be, a stepping stone
on the way to a united Europe".
And many more.
> Such political integration may come, but it has nothing to do with the ?.
Of course it does - as you yourself said, a country would be much less
likely to leave the EU when in the Euro than otherwise. Outside the Euro
when the plan for a single state becomes clear, the Danes can make a free
choice. This is an attempt to lock them in.
> >2.2) Tax - There will be serious implications regarding tax. It wouldn't
> >be long before Europe would be setting this across Euroland. Given
> >Europe's record on waste and mismanagement, together with its
> >aspirations for explanation into the poorer East, taxes would inevitably
> >have to go up to subsidise their economies.
>
> Bullshit, bullshit. There is no reason, why the ? should have any results
> on taxes.
"A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their
sovereignty over financial and wage policies as well as monetary
affairs......It is an illusion to think that states can hold onto their
autonomy over taxation policies."
- Hans Tietmeyer.
> But this is all a result of the internal marked, which we joined in 1986.
> It has _nothing_ to do with the ?. Besides, most people here would _love_
> to see further harmonising of tax-rates ;-)
Really? All the people I met were very worried at what this meant for the
welfare state, especially given that the money cannot be borrowed because of
the stability pact.
> What you say about Germany is a shameless lie.
Again, afraid not. The Germans have put forward no scheme to deal with the
fact that their pensions system would require already high taxes to rise by
9.5% of GDP to fund it.
> Besides you could say the same about Denmark, as our pensions are paid via
> tax, which means that there is nothing like a "provision".
The UK and Denmark share the fact that a large amount of today's money is
going towards paying for future pensions.
> Denmark will indeed have more influence than we have now.
Nonsense. When did Denmark have the most influence? It was in the famous
June, when everybody in Europe wanted to know what Denmark thought.
> our interest rate is, as I told you, being determined in Frankfurt. It is
> of course vital for us to get influence on the way this is done, and one
> vote out of sixteen is more than zero votes.
You are thinking that the votes are tied to countries, whereas representing
your country at the meeting of the Central Bank is specifically banned by
the Treaties.
> You really don't seem to understand anything. No additional decision
making
> is being transferred.
"The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the
foundation of the European Community ... It is a decision of an essentially
political nature. We need this United Europe ... we must never forget that
the Euro is an instrument for this project."
Felipe Gonsalez, former Prime Minister of Spain.
> >5) Once you're in the Euro there is NO way back - NO second chance. Like
> >or lump it you're stuck with it and anything else that Europe decides is
> >'in your interest'.
>
> First of all this is not correct.
Romano Prodi again;
"By definition it's a permanent decision. You cannot enter into monetary
union thinking you can do so for five years or so".
> Yes it is our choice, and it would be wonderful if you would respect that
> and stop making British internal politics at our cost.
An attack on one is an attack on all. The Eurostate relies on a policy of
divide and conquer, therefore Europeans everywhere must oppose it together.
jdcxxx
Paulo Alexandre Rocha
"Giles Allen" <giles...@planet-earth-uk.freeserve.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:8q8056$giv$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Firstly, I would like to apologise for having to type this message in
> English and not Danish.
>
skrive på andre språk enn dansk.
Kanskje skrev Du ikke på dansk, fordi meldinga ikke handler om Danmark?
mvh,
Paulo Rocha
Bob Spowart
Lars Jørgen Helbo wrote in message <8FB4C0A86l...@192.168.0.1>...
>giles...@planet-earth-uk.freeserve.co.uk (Giles Allen) wrote in
><8q8056$giv$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
>This is bullshit. As the president for the European Monetary Bank said just
>two days ago, the existence of a common European currency does _not_ mean
>that there will have to be any further steps towards a political union.
>Such political integration may come, but it has nothing to do with the €.
>
What a total load of bollicks!!!!! The single currency is a vital step on
the way towards full political integration. Following acceptance of the
Eurine, full harmonisation of fiscal matters will follow very shortly. For
the Eurinals to try to pretend otherwise is beyond belief.
<<SNIP>>
>Bullshit, bullshit. There is no reason, why the € should have any results
>on taxes.
>
On the contrary, full implimentation of the Eurine will lead to a single tax
regime across the whole of the Eurine area. With the corruption and
efficiency in Brussles, how much of this will be wasted?
>>2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large
>>numbers haven't made proper provision for their old age and will
>>encounter many problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest
>>of Euroland to pay for this?
>
>What you say about Germany is a shameless lie. It is correct that the
>Germans have some problem with financing their pensions. The reason for
>this is that German pensions are very high (much higher than British or
>Danish), because Germans retire rather early (58 to 60 years) and because
>they have relatively few children. But there is no sign what so ever that
>the Germans should not be able to take care of this.
Especially with the tax revenues of the whole Eurine area to draw upon! But
of course for the Eurinals, this is a minor point!
>
<SNIP>
>You really don't seem to understand anything. No additional decision making
>is being transferred. In contrast to the UK, we have had fixed exchange
>rates since 1983 and we are a member of ERMII. Therefore the transfer of
>decision making was done long ago.
A good case for leaving the ERM I suspect!!
>
>>5) Once you're in the Euro there is NO way back - NO second chance. Like
>>or lump it you're stuck with it and anything else that Europe decides is
>>'in your interest'.
>
<SNIP>
>Therefore I am pretty sure that after a yes at the referendum, nobody will
>ever seriously want to leave again. The problem simply seems to be that the
>people on the no-side think slower ;-)
I suspect that no one will be allowed to suggest leaving! The Eurines have
already tried interfering in the internal politics of many countries, not
least Austria.
>
>Yes it is our choice, and it would be wonderful if you would respect that
>and stop making British internal politics at our cost.
I agree!!! Lets stop spending British taxpayer's money on your refferendum.
Unfortunatly the Brussels Eurinals are spending our taxes to support the Yes
campaign!!
Bob
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<96939003...@helan.trd.sintef.no>:
Det er der naturligvis ingen, der tvinger ham til. Men som du siger er
problemet ganske rigtigt, at disse engelske anti-europæere ikke
interesserer sig en brik for Danmark. De forsøger at misbruge den danske
afstemning i deres eget indenrigspolitiske spil i England.
Deres indblanding er helt sammenlignelig med den franske præsidents
indblanding i Østrig.
jonivar skullerud
> "Lars Jørgen Helbo" <he...@bigfoot.com> wrote
> > What you say about Germany is a shameless lie.
>
> Again, afraid not. The Germans have put forward no scheme to deal with the
> fact that their pensions system would require already high taxes to rise by
> 9.5% of GDP to fund it.
>
> > Besides you could say the same about Denmark, as our pensions are paid via
> > tax, which means that there is nothing like a "provision".
>
> The UK and Denmark share the fact that a large amount of today's money is
> going towards paying for future pensions.
Whilst i agree with much of the rest you are saying, this is pretty
nonsensical. There is no such thing as todays money paying for future
pensions. If you believe that you are seriously deluded. The *only*
thing that can pay for future pensions is production in the future.
What matters -- the only thing that matters -- is production of real
goods and services. If there is no production, you can have saved up
as much money as you like; all the money will be utterly worthless.
Pension funds are not inherently superior to taxpayer-funded
pay-as-you-go systems. I would even wager that they are inferior,
since they depend crucially on the vagaries of the capital markets.
The bottom line is: MONEY IS NOT A REAL THING, therefore for society
to believe it can save up money is foolish and dangerous.
The only way we may put todays wealth towards paying for future
pensions is by investing in future production, which primarily means
investing in education, but also ensuring the survival of
manifacturing and primary industries (including, not running down
finite, non-renewable resources).
jonivar
--
______ _________________________________________________
/ | |
| jon | jonivar skullerud |
\______ | |
\ | jon...@bigfoot.com |
ivar | | http://www.bigfoot.com/~jonivar/ |
_______/ |_________________________________________________|
jdc
> Whilst i agree with much of the rest you are saying, this is pretty
> nonsensical. There is no such thing as todays money paying for future
> pensions. If you believe that you are seriously deluded. The *only*
> thing that can pay for future pensions is production in the future.
> What matters -- the only thing that matters -- is production of real
> goods and services. If there is no production, you can have saved up
> as much money as you like; all the money will be utterly worthless.
>
> Pension funds are not inherently superior to taxpayer-funded
> pay-as-you-go systems. I would even wager that they are inferior,
> since they depend crucially on the vagaries of the capital markets.
> The bottom line is: MONEY IS NOT A REAL THING, therefore for society
> to believe it can save up money is foolish and dangerous.
>
> The only way we may put todays wealth towards paying for future
> pensions is by investing in future production, which primarily means
> investing in education, but also ensuring the survival of
> manifacturing and primary industries (including, not running down
> finite, non-renewable resources).
But pension fund money tends to go towards investing in production (usually,
if it's a good investor), whereas government PAYG schemes tend to use the
money to subsidise shortfalls in other spending (France being an excellent
example of this). If the capital markets collapse with no intentional
replacement then we're all shafted, whereas if they don't, people with
funded pensions stand to do well, whereas people relying on bankrupt states
are at risk, as states retrench and can only afford to help the poorest
pensioners.
jdcxxx
Richard Gregory
>
> giles...@planet-earth-uk.freeserve.co.uk (Giles Allen) wrote in
> <8q8056$giv$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
> >Firstly, I would like to apologise for having to type this message in
> >English and not Danish.
>
> >Think yourselves lucky that you are amongst a small group of people in
> >Europe who are being given the opportunity to decide whether or not to
> >adopt the Euro. Many would like a vote, but few have been given one,
> >their Governments for whatever reason deciding to deny them a say on
> >what is one of the most important issues for generations.
>
> Then maybe you should elect another government? Besides, I thought you were
> going to have a referendum shortly after the next general election?
Quite right. However, the poster is correct: only a minority of
countries is holding a referendum over the question.
> > Before voting, consider the following points: -
>
> >1) Are you in favour of a Federal Europe or European Super State? - If
> >not then why take a major step towards it by giving away your countries
> >financial independence.
>
> This is bullshit. As the president for the European Monetary Bank said just
> two days ago, the existence of a common European currency does _not_ mean
> that there will have to be any further steps towards a political union.
> Such political integration may come, but it has nothing to do with the €.
I can find you at least a dozen quotes from persons at least as
influential (and more so since they are politicians and not just
bankers) saying that not only is such integration the inevitable
outcome of EMU, but that this was one of it's intended reasons for
being created. Indeed such integration has *already* taken place:
the eurozone already acts as a "union within a union", and behaves
more and more as a bloc.
It is utterly absurd to say that countries merging their currencies
into a single one will not have to integrate more closely politically;
EMU brings with it issues that cannot be solved otherwise.
>
> >2) Think beyond the Euro - It's not just a case of different money in
> >your pocket, it's everything that goes with it.
>
> >2.1) Interest rates - These will be determined in Frankfurt supposedly
> >at the 'appropriate' level for the whole of Euroland. As Ireland is
> >finding out at the moment, this can leave you seriously disadvantaged.
> >Questions also have to be asked why France was so insistent on having a
> >French citizen as the next head of the European Central Bank. Would it
> >be to look after French interests above all others?
>
> This is nothing new. Since 1983 Danish interest rates have been determined
> in Frankfurt. This is the result of the fixed exchange rate, which the wast
> majority on both sides in the present campaign want's to maintain.
Correct. You linked your currency to one other; you did not merge it
with a much larger zone. Germany didn't take any notice of Denmark's
needs, but it suited Denmark to follow Germany *until such time
as it chose not to*. Linking exchange rates is nothing like EMU
(if it were, why bother going beyond the ERM?). Most of the damage
done to the British economy by the ERM was the stupidity of staying
within it for political, rather than economic, reasons.
>
> >2.2) Tax - There will be serious implications regarding tax. It wouldn't
> >be long before Europe would be setting this across Euroland. Given
> >Europe's record on waste and mismanagement, together with its
> >aspirations for explanation into the poorer East, taxes would inevitably
> >have to go up to subsidise their economies.
>
> Bullshit, bullshit. There is no reason, why the € should have any results
> on taxes.
Single currency, harmonised taxes. makes perfect sense.
> >2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large
> >numbers haven't made proper provision for their old age and will
> >encounter many problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest
> >of Euroland to pay for this?
>
> What you say about Germany is a shameless lie. It is correct that the
> Germans have some problem with financing their pensions. The reason for
> this is that German pensions are very high (much higher than British or
> Danish), because Germans retire rather early (58 to 60 years) and because
> they have relatively few children. But there is no sign what so ever that
> the Germans should not be able to take care of this.
Rubbish. The German "pension time bomb" is well known. This is
because
1) Few Germans make private provisions for pensions
2) There will be too few Germans of working age to support the
current state-provided pension for the number of retiring
persons.
This means that pensions will have to fall or taxes rise.
Same way people awaiting execution accept their situation...
Heli
1st i would like to say that i am austrian but pro-euro and i didnt vote for
that... you know...;-)
Giles Allen wrote:
> Firstly, I would like to apologise for having to type this message in
> English and not Danish.
I appriciate that because I can't read any danish =)
>
> Think yourselves lucky that you are amongst a small group of people in
> Europe who are being given the opportunity to decide whether or not to adopt
> the Euro. Many would like a vote, but few have been given one, their
> Governments for whatever reason deciding to deny them a say on what is one
> of the most important issues for generations.
I think it should frustrate you that you _should_ be lucky to decide that, aware
that your system is like all other 'common' democracies in the EU. But you are
right... in most countries, the people werent asked. Of course because you said
"no" one time...
>
>
> Before voting, consider the following points: -
>
> 1) Are you in favour of a Federal Europe or European Super State? - If not
> then why take a major step towards it by giving away your countries
> financial independence.
I think that the 'giveaway' of your independence (generally, not only financial)
will not happen in the near future and without at least one another vote of the
people. "The United States of Europe" will take some time till getting born, but
it is a huge jump in that direction. As long only those contracts, which are
done yet, are current, the member states of the € will have enough autonomy to
prevent the horrors you mentioned below.
> 2) Think beyond the Euro - It's not just a case of different money in your
> pocket, it's everything that goes with it.
*what is everything*, anyway...
> 2.1) Interest rates - These will be determined in Frankfurt supposedly at
> the 'appropriate' level for the whole of Euroland. As Ireland is finding out
> at the moment, this can leave you seriously disadvantaged. Questions also
> have to be asked why France was so insistent on having a French citizen as
> the next head of the European Central Bank. Would it be to look after French
> interests above all others?
> 2.2) Tax - There will be serious implications regarding tax. It wouldn't be
> long before Europe would be setting this across Euroland. Given Europe's
> record on waste and mismanagement, together with its aspirations for
> explanation into the poorer East, taxes would inevitably have to go up to
> subsidise their economies.
> 2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large numbers
> haven't made proper provision for their old age and will encounter many
> problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest of Euroland to pay
> for this?
>
> 3) Don't believe the politicians when they tell you that Denmark will have
> more influence in the future of Europe. If anything it will have less.
> Especially with increased majority voting and the expansion into the East.
And here we have something, which frightens me. Seriously, you (the danish
people) wont really pay for e.g. germans tax-pension system face enourmenous
problems because of missing birthrates in the 70's,80's,...till now. When we all
give up our xenophobia, realize that we need (!) foreign workforce now and in
the future (the side effect here would be a better society ;-) then I see no
real problem here...
What I ask myself is, how long the new eastern states will take to fulfill the
the criterias of mastricht...will they be lifted for them?
How can our politics imagine that we are only building another 2 class europe.
One €, and one Europe which is financed by the other.
By all respect for the people in these countries, who would like to join, I
think they are still suffering too much from the effects of 'communism'.
Imagine, the enourmenous migration which will also happen from west to east. I
could imagine working in the czech republic but when I think back at my last
trip and the problems with my visa (No computer, sorry) or that I payed in some
(!) restaurants more (up to 30%) because i spoke german...just _one_ stupid
example (in this case), but I think that the better way is, that we have
patience and help these countries to develope. And when they join, then the
people in these countries will also be asked if they want the €.
This is not because I am xenophobic but I see so many around. Even although the
majority of the people would accept them, there are enough to drive one's life
into hell combined with no job, insurance, prospects, whatever..what life could
an european citizen (e.g. from the east) then expect.
what will happen to the € when these states join the union..?
>
> 4) Denmark's government reduced to a local council - With the Euro your
> government will be surrendering a huge part of its decision making process
> to Europe. Do you trust European politicians enough to make decisions that
> will affect your everyday life and standard of living even more than it does
> now? If you are unhappy with these politicians, will it be easy to do
> anything about it?
I think with saying 'No' to the €, you will give up most of the "part" you
"play" in the EU. There will be no other choices in the future. In or Out. You
have the choice. I dont trust this EU-strukture because there are simply too
many politiks in it... too ineffective...too expensive.
But when you are 'Out' you cant change it...you have no influence on what goes
on 'In', right?
>
> 5) Once you're in the Euro there is NO way back - NO second chance. Like or
> lump it you're stuck with it and anything else that Europe decides is 'in
> your interest'.
right...
>
> It's your choice. If you're in doubt and you're not sure how to vote, isn't
> it better to vote NEJ now and live for another day, rather than turn down
> that one way street that leads to the Franco-German goal of a United States
> of Europe and forever regret your decision?
In this case, I ask you how you want to change that, when you dont even have the
€ ('Out')
The only way would be to leave the EU completly... no way! or not?
>
> Don't waste your vote - Vote NEJ and keep Denmark's independence.
I used to dream of a "united europe" (i hate the term "united states of... ;-)
with austria, portugal, russia (of course), island, greek and all what lies
between. A direct democracy like it is put into effect (but only in an attempt
way) in switzerland. There the people say:
Quote:
"I have to vote because otherwise those idiots called politics do everything
wrong"
In the rest of good old Europe you say: I can only vote _for_ the politics.
This is not the Europe of my dreams (of course) so I would think about two
things if I would be danish.
1. Project €: yes or no.
2. Is this (!) Europe worth enough that I want to take the stepp into a bigger
community, because this is, be always aware, what you do when you take over
european money in your pocket. Just a little step but in the right direction
when you dream the same dream like me ;-)
I dont think that I want to decide this question at this moment in these
times...
Regards
Heli
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<39C901...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>Quite right. However, the poster is correct: only a minority of
>countries is holding a referendum over the question.
And so what. All EU-countries are democratic. If the poeple really want it,
what should prevent them from getting a referendum?
>Single currency, harmonised taxes. makes perfect sense.
Wrong. What makes perfect sence is: Single marked, harmonised taxes. It has
nothing to o with the Euro.
>Rubbish. The German "pension time bomb" is well known. This is
>because
>1) Few Germans make private provisions for pensions
>2) There will be too few Germans of working age to support the
>current state-provided pension for the number of retiring
>persons.
>This means that pensions will have to fall or taxes rise.
But where is the difference to Denmark? And what has this to do with the
Euro?
>Same way people awaiting execution accept their situation...
Do they? I heard that many of those awaiting execution in the US are very
active to avoid it?
The difference is that many of those, who were actively campaigning against
the EEC in 1972 or the inner marked in 1986 or even the EMU in 1992 are now
actively supporting it.
Paulo Alexandre Rocha
"Richard Gregory" <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:39C901...@interalpha.co.uk...
> Quite right. However, the poster is correct: only a minority of
> countries is holding a referendum over the question.
Technically speaking, France, Ireland, Austria, Finland and Sweden all
accepted the single currency through a referendum in which they accepted the
Maastricht treaty and therefore the single currency (the Irish referendum
wasn't strictly speaking on the Treaty, but on the Constitutional changes it
brought; Austria and Finland joined the EU based on the Maastricht Treaty;
so did Sweden, so the Swedes actually already accepted the single currency
in a referendum; if Norway had voted yes, they would be implicitly accepting
the single currency). They aren't a majority (with the UK it's 6 out of 15),
but it's not only Denmark.
> It is utterly absurd to say that countries merging their currencies
> into a single one will not have to integrate more closely politically;
> EMU brings with it issues that cannot be solved otherwise.
Yes, Ireland was very willing to integrate more closely with Britain in
1921-1979, when they used the pound sterling. It was also seen that Belgium
and Luxembourg integrated more closely. I also expect Ecuador to integrate
more closely with the US because they use the same currency now.
> Single currency, harmonised taxes. makes perfect sense.
Exactly. The United States have harmonized taxes, don't they?
Regards,
Paulo Rocha
jonivar skullerud
> Rubbish. The German "pension time bomb" is well known. This is
> because
>
> 1) Few Germans make private provisions for pensions
>
> 2) There will be too few Germans of working age to support the
> current state-provided pension for the number of retiring
> persons.
>
> This means that pensions will have to fall or taxes rise.
And how exactly are private pension funds going to change that?
If there are too few germans of working age to support the number of
pensioners, then there are too few germans of working age to support
the number of pensioners, no matter how you fiddle around with numbers
in accounts. Pension funds are not going to miraculously create more
germans of working age.
jonivar skullerud
> "Richard Gregory" <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> skrev i melding
> news:39C901...@interalpha.co.uk...
> > It is utterly absurd to say that countries merging their currencies
> > into a single one will not have to integrate more closely politically;
> > EMU brings with it issues that cannot be solved otherwise.
>
> Yes, Ireland was very willing to integrate more closely with Britain in
> 1921-1979, when they used the pound sterling. It was also seen that Belgium
> and Luxembourg integrated more closely. I also expect Ecuador to integrate
> more closely with the US because they use the same currency now.
... which is another example of politicians making decisions
completely against the wishes of the people. There was a revolt in
Ecuador against dollarisation wasnt there?
jdc
> > 2) There will be too few Germans of working age to support the
> > current state-provided pension for the number of retiring
> > persons.
> >
> > This means that pensions will have to fall or taxes rise.
>
> And how exactly are private pension funds going to change that?
By investing in developing economies now, and importing some of their
profits when that pays off.
jdcxxx
jonivar skullerud
> "jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>
> > > 2) There will be too few Germans of working age to support the
> > > current state-provided pension for the number of retiring
> > > persons.
> > >
> > > This means that pensions will have to fall or taxes rise.
> >
> > And how exactly are private pension funds going to change that?
>
> By investing in developing economies now, and importing some of their
> profits when that pays off.
In other words, live as parasites on the resources and work of people
in developing countries.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>"jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>> And how exactly are private pension funds going to change that?
>By investing in developing economies now, and importing some of their
>profits when that pays off.
And what we do in Denmark is to pay taxes, which are then invested in e.g.
education. This will allow our children to maintain the high production
that we have, when we retire and need our pensions - where is the
difference.
Besides, your freinds in Enhedslisten uses this a major argument against
the €. They claim, that we will be forced to give up our tax-financed
pensions, and that we will have to replace them with a system of private
pension funds, if we join the €.
Do you think that this is correct? And do you think that this would
actually be a progress?
jdc
> In other words, live as parasites on the resources and work of people
> in developing countries.
Of course, it would be far better to leave them alone and let them develop
technology on their own, and produce capital investment from nowhere, and
gain marketing expertise by trial and error.
jdcxxx
jdc
> Do you think that this is correct?
Potentially. There are all sorts of aspects of the requirement not to
subsidise that have yet to be tested. I eagerly await the case against the
BBC Tax.
> And do you think that this would
> actually be a progress?
I think it is a decision that should be made by the representatives of the
Danish electorate, not the Europan Court of "Justice".
jdcxxx
Lars Jørgen Helbo
win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>I think it is a decision that should be made by the representatives of the
>Danish electorate, not the Europan Court of "Justice".
You are really great ;-)
You started out by claiming that the German system of pensions is bad
(read: it is different from the British), and therefore we should be
afraid of joing the €.
Then I told you that the Danish system is even more different from the
British, and so you suddenly find out that this is also an argument against
the €.
And this even though the Danish anti-€-people, who originally used the
pension as an argument, have now had to drop this, and most of them have
admitted that all this talk about pensions was based on lies and has
nothing to do with the €.
Somehow I love you British. You are so ignorant in your nationalism. You
have no idea about what is going on outside your little island - even you,
who call yourself a socialist - it is just too wonderful LOL.
jdc
> You are really great ;-)
Thanks.
> You started out by claiming that the German system of pensions is bad
> (read: it is different from the British),
Read: It is notoriously underfunded. I stand by that.
> and therefore we should be
> afraid of joing the ?.
I think it is very possible that when the money runs out in those countries
they will try to "pool" the resources of those other countries which they
are, after all, in an Economic Union with.
> Then I told you that the Danish system is even more different from the
> British, and so you suddenly find out that this is also an argument
against
> the ?.
Not per se. You told me the Danish system is one chosen by the Danes.
Certainly holding onto your sovereignty over such issues is a good reason to
vote no.
> And this even though the Danish anti-?-people, who originally used the
> pension as an argument, have now had to drop this,
Odd, the top three stories on
and most of them have
> admitted that all this talk about pensions was based on lies and has
> nothing to do with the ?.
>
> Somehow I love you British. You are so ignorant in your nationalism. You
> have no idea about what is going on outside your little island - even you,
> who call yourself a socialist - it is just too wonderful LOL.
jdc
> > And this even though the Danish anti-?-people, who originally used the
> > pension as an argument, have now had to drop this,
>
> Odd, the top three stories on
Sorry, that escaped before I'd sent it.
out of five on http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?selected_topic=8 are
about pensions, and the lead story at http://www.berlingske.dk seems, though
I'll grant you my Danish isn't up to much, to be about the Yes-side
squabbling at how poor the Prime Minister's reaction on pensions was, and
how he had to drop his plan to write to other EU leaders asking them to
promise to leave Denmark's pensions alone when he realised they couldn't do
anything of the sort.
jdcxxx
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<Ivpy5.667$6b2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>out of five on http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?selected_topic=8
>are about pensions, and the lead story at http://www.berlingske.dk
>seems, though I'll grant you my Danish isn't up to much, to be about the
>Yes-side squabbling at how poor the Prime Minister's reaction on
>pensions was, and how he had to drop his plan to write to other EU
>leaders asking them to promise to leave Denmark's pensions alone when he
>realised they couldn't do anything of the sort.
Yes, but this was actually all over by tuesday. What happened was that the
PM during the weekend started his main attack against the no-side
concerning the pensions.
The no-side had claimed that a yes at the referendum, would endanger our
pensions. So at the congress of the labour party at the weekend, he made a
double proposal.
First of all he invited all other parties to join in a common 10 year
guerantee for the pensions (in case of a yes). Such agreements are quiet
common here, and they are _allways_ respected - also after general
elections. This agreement says that the parties agree to maintain the
present pensions for at least 10 years after a yes, and it can only be
changed, if all parties behind it agree. So any party, who would join this
agreement, would get a right of veto against any changes of the pensions.
All parties from the yes-side accepted this agreement. This gives it a
majority of 136 MP's out of 179 and it is really unthinkable that they
should not have a majority at any time within the 10 years.
His second proposal was that he would write a letter to all PM's within the
EU and ask them for a promise that they would not interfere in our pension-
system. This proposal got some critic from other yes-parties, because it
was a bit risky (you never know, how the French will react to something
like that).
However, in the end he did not have to use it. The no-parties - when
confronted with the first proposal - practically stepped back. You must
imagine that they had build the major part of their campaign on the claim
that a yes would endanger the pensions. Now they are offered a right of
veto against any changes in the pension-system.
If they had accepted this proposal, they would have admitted that now,
there is really nothing to be afraid of. If they had rejected the proposal,
the yes-side could claim that they were not _really_ interested in securing
the pensions. So what they did was to "step back". They made some
statements that they had never really said anything about pensions etc.
So on monday our PM could conclude that he had made an agreement with all
yes-parties. This means that the pensions are now completely secured. The
no-parties did not want to take part in this. Therefore they can not have
any real interest in this matter, and therefore he had decided that he
would not send off his letter, as it would be a waste of time.
So after this (IMHO brilliant) operation the no-side has lost a key-element
in their campaign, and they more or less stand as those, who tried to scare
off the old voters with a bunch of lies.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<uqpy5.658$6b2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>"Lars Jørgen Helbo" <he...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>> And this even though the Danish anti-?-people, who originally used the
>> pension as an argument, have now had to drop this,
>Odd, the top three stories on
Not anymore, you are at least one day behind ;-)
Lars Jørgen Helbo
192.168.0.1>:
>john.co...@ntlworld.com (jdc) wrote in
><uqpy5.658$6b2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>>Odd, the top three stories on
>Not anymore, you are at least one day behind ;-)
Let me add that the two top-stories from today are "Danish No-side is
misguiding voters", this is what is now left from the pension-story - I
really think our PM handled this case in the most brilliant way, though I
usually do not agree with him ;-)
And the second story is "A No means a loss of 20,000 jobs". This is a
result of a new report made by the research-organisation of the trade-
unions.
And the next story coming up, will probably say something like "A no will
cost 20 billion kroners". That was the main message send out by the
ministers of economy and finance this morning. This may in a day or two
bring the pension-issue back, but the other way around. Because out of
these 20 billions 7.5 billions will have to be cut in public spending
(according to the government), and the conclusion that everybody must draw
is of course that a _no_ will endanger our pensions - and remember the
guerantee is only valid after a yes.
jdc
> First of all he invited all other parties to join in a common 10 year
> guerantee for the pensions (in case of a yes).
Ten years sound about right for when I think this is likely to become an
issue. Around 2015 maybe.
> So any party, who would join this
> agreement, would get a right of veto against any changes of the pensions.
Sorry, could you point me at the bit of the Treaties that makes the Danish
Parliament superior to EU law?
> All parties from the yes-side accepted this agreement. This gives it a
> majority of 136 MP's out of 179 and it is really unthinkable that they
> should not have a majority at any time within the 10 years.
136 MPs in one country. Out of 15.
jdcxxx
Christopher
Paulo....@informatics.sintef.no says...
>
> Exactly. The United States have harmonized taxes, don't they?
Federal income taxes are the same. State and local taxes are certainly
not. Regions in the US compete with one another in terms of lowering
taxes and providing services efficiently and cheaply. This competition
helps our economy over time as high tax regions must reform and
restructure to compete with lower tax regions.
Paulo Alexandre Rocha
"Christopher" skrev i melding ...
> > >
> > Exactly. The United States have harmonized taxes, don't they?
>
> Federal income taxes are the same. State and local taxes are certainly
> not. Regions in the US compete with one another in terms of lowering
> taxes and providing services efficiently and cheaply. This competition
> helps our economy over time as high tax regions must reform and
> restructure to compete with lower tax regions.
I must remember to use the <irony> tag more often.
I'm perfectly aware that the US hasn't harmonized taxes. Contrary to what
was implied, a single currency doesn't mean harmonized taxes. The US is
there to prove it.
Interestingly, many of those in Britain who fight tax harmonization EU-wide
are the same one who campaigned against tax-varying powers to the Scottish
Parliament.
However, at this stage, a uniformized "federal" tax in the EU is unpratical.
At this stage.
Regards,
Paulo Rocha
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<ydry5.983$6b2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>Sorry, could you point me at the bit of the Treaties that makes the
>Danish Parliament superior to EU law?
In such matters we still have a right of veto, and this agreement also
means that we are going to maintain that.
>136 MPs in one country. Out of 15.
Which will then use their right of veto.
jdc
> Federal income taxes are the same. State and local taxes are certainly
> not. Regions in the US compete with one another in terms of lowering
> taxes and providing services efficiently and cheaply. This competition
> helps our economy over time as high tax regions must reform and
> restructure to compete with lower tax regions.
Reform and restructure... tax competition. Right.
Out of interest, what are state pensions like in the USA?
jdcxxx
jdc
> >Sorry, could you point me at the bit of the Treaties that makes the
> >Danish Parliament superior to EU law?
>
> In such matters we still have a right of veto,
That's what we have been told about many things, only to find we have
nothing of the sort.
> and this agreement also
> means that we are going to maintain that.
Not when it becomes "too difficult" to manage the EU with eastward expansion
and a veto for everyone - do you really believe the federalist believe in a
veto? I receive the campaign updates of the European Movement. They believe
that after the Nice Treaty, or at the latest 2004, the Parliament should be
able to amend the Treaties, which they now call "The European Constitution".
jdcxxx
Richard Gregory
>
> john.co...@ntlworld.com (jdc) wrote in
> <ydry5.983$6b2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>
> >Sorry, could you point me at the bit of the Treaties that makes the
> >Danish Parliament superior to EU law?
>
> In such matters we still have a right of veto, and this agreement also
> means that we are going to maintain that.
But it is intended to make QMV the standard way of working
in the EU in all but a few sensitive areas, and my guess is that
it won't be long before those areas move to QMV either
"to complete the Single European Qualified Majority Voting Area" :-D
>
> >136 MPs in one country. Out of 15.
>
> Which will then use their right of veto.
Really? Can you remember the last time a country used it's veto?
And I'm sure you can imagine the charges levelled at Denmark
after it: "anti-European"..."European Integration being held back
by one awkward country"..."Denmark not really European"...
etc etc. After all, this has all be said to the British when
we didn't wish to follow the herd; let alone using the veto!
Richard Gregory
>
> Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Rubbish. The German "pension time bomb" is well known. This is
> > because
> >
> > 1) Few Germans make private provisions for pensions
> >
> > 2) There will be too few Germans of working age to support the
> > current state-provided pension for the number of retiring
> > persons.
> >
> > This means that pensions will have to fall or taxes rise.
>
It means that the State can pay lower or fewer pensions.
>
> If there are too few germans of working age to support the number of
> pensioners, then there are too few germans of working age to support
> the number of pensioners, no matter how you fiddle around with numbers
> in accounts. Pension funds are not going to miraculously create more
> germans of working age.
Because private pension funds aren't drawn from taxation or other
direct means from the working population.
Richard Gregory
>
> "jdc" <john.co...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> > "jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote
> >
> > > > current state-provided pension for the number of retiring
> > > > persons.
> > > >
> > > > This means that pensions will have to fall or taxes rise.
> > >
> >
> > profits when that pays off.
>
> in developing countries.
Nope. For example, Europe itself is still a developing economy.
Richard Gregory
>
> john.co...@ntlworld.com (jdc) wrote in <Ktly5.353$6b2.5066@news6-
> win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>
> >"jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>
> >By investing in developing economies now, and importing some of their
> >profits when that pays off.
>
> education. This will allow our children to maintain the high production
> that we have, when we retire and need our pensions - where is the
> difference.
Simple; because of the trend towards an ageing population, most of whom
will live longer and perhaps retire earlier, sooner or later you won't
have enough people to pay enough tax to fund pensions.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
@interalpha.co.uk>:
>But it is intended to make QMV the standard way of working
>in the EU in all but a few sensitive areas, and my guess is that
>it won't be long before those areas move to QMV either
>"to complete the Single European Qualified Majority Voting Area" :-D
The problem, which you don't seem to understand is that we have a right of
veto against such a move ;-)
Richard Gregory
>
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in <39CBA485.8A5
> @interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >But it is intended to make QMV the standard way of working
> >in the EU in all but a few sensitive areas, and my guess is that
> >it won't be long before those areas move to QMV either
> >"to complete the Single European Qualified Majority Voting Area" :-D
>
> The problem, which you don't seem to understand is that we have a right of
> veto against such a move ;-)
..and you conveniently cut my section that asked awkward questions
like
"and when was the national veto actually used?" and
"what do you imagine the political fallout would be after using
it?"
Don't forget: you closer you tie yourself to the majority, the
more you need their goodwill. If Denmark sank a major Treaty,
for example, by using it's veto well it wouldn't do wonders
for your "influence" would it?
It was bad enough when Denmark was blamed for "throwing the Union
into crisis" when she had the temerity to vote "nej". Guess that's
why the referendum was re-run with almost indecent haste.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>It was bad enough when Denmark was blamed for "throwing the Union
>into crisis" when she had the temerity to vote "nej". Guess that's
>why the referendum was re-run with almost indecent haste.
We have never "re-run" any referendum in Denmark. I have no idea, what you
are talking about. We have had a number of referendums, but we never had
two referendums about the same question.
Richard Gregory
>
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in
> <39CCCE...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >It was bad enough when Denmark was blamed for "throwing the Union
> >into crisis" when she had the temerity to vote "nej". Guess that's
> >why the referendum was re-run with almost indecent haste.
>
> We have never "re-run" any referendum in Denmark. I have no idea, what you
> are talking about. We have had a number of referendums, but we never had
> two referendums about the same question.
Maastricht Treaty? Oh yes, you got a few "derrogations" as the
Commission prefers to call them, but the basic issue was the same.
Essentially, the Danish Government went cap in hand and secured
the minimum required concessions to gain the "yes" vote.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>Maastricht Treaty? Oh yes, you got a few "derrogations" as the
>Commission prefers to call them, but the basic issue was the same.
The is not true. If it had been the same issue, the referendum on the
coming thursday would not have been needed.
jonivar skullerud
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in
> <39CDD7...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >Maastricht Treaty? Oh yes, you got a few "derrogations" as the
> >Commission prefers to call them, but the basic issue was the same.
>
> The is not true. If it had been the same issue, the referendum on the
> coming thursday would not have been needed.
That is not quite true. Part of the re-referendum in 1993 was indeed
a legally binding undertaking not to enter the third phase of EMU
without a new referendum. However, that does not mean that a
referendum on the single currency could not have been made necessary
even if no such undertaking had been made prior to the re-referendum.
Nothing would afaik have prevented Folketinget from passing a law
making a referendum a prerequisite for entering the single currency.
The basic issue was the Maastricht treaty. It was not just basically
the same, but exactly the same, word for word.
Now, after the no-side wins the referendum on thursday, how long do
you think it will be before your beloved politicians start calling for
a new referendum?
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<83em28s...@theopc5.desy.de>:
>That is not quite true. Part of the re-referendum in 1993 was indeed
>a legally binding undertaking not to enter the third phase of EMU
>without a new referendum. However, that does not mean that a
>referendum on the single currency could not have been made necessary
>even if no such undertaking had been made prior to the re-referendum.
>Nothing would afaik have prevented Folketinget from passing a law
>making a referendum a prerequisite for entering the single currency.
(Practically) any proposal can be send out to a referendum. The only thing
needed is the signature of 1/3 of the MP's; but so what?
>The basic issue was the Maastricht treaty. It was not just basically
>the same, but exactly the same, word for word.
But with unfortunately with these four horrible opt-outs, and therefore the
subject for the referendum was _not_ the same. And _because_ it was not the
same, we now _must_ have a new referendum.
>Now, after the no-side wins the referendum on thursday, how long do
>you think it will be before your beloved politicians start calling for
>a new referendum?
Well, first of all I still hope for a lucky outcome on thursday ;-)
Things are moving in the right direction, and the no-campaign has done a
lot of good with all their lies about the pensions and the Baltic nations.
It really seems as if a lot of people have finally started thinking.
But _if_ the worst should really happen, I really dare not guess, when we
may get a second chance. There first has to be some kind of occasion for
it. If the UK or Sweden would join the € or if the Danish kroners would get
into serious trouble on the money-marked, that might be a sufficient
reason.
Otherwise I expect that we would soon see a double currency system. Many
shops have allready declared that they will start using double pricing
(Euros and kroners) beginning during the coming spring - no matter how the
referendum will turn out.
That way we might see a "soft transition", where the kroners might loose
any importance within a few years.
Richard Gregory
>
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in
> <39CDD7...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >Maastricht Treaty? Oh yes, you got a few "derrogations" as the
> >Commission prefers to call them, but the basic issue was the same.
>
> coming thursday would not have been needed.
Wrong. The issue is exactly the same: you are having a referendum
now to decide whether to retain your "derrogation" on joining EMU or
not. Remember without it, Denmark would have been legally *obliged*
to join provided it fulfilled the criteria.
Richard Gregory
> > <39CDD7...@interalpha.co.uk>:
> >
> > >Maastricht Treaty? Oh yes, you got a few "derrogations" as the
> > >Commission prefers to call them, but the basic issue was the same.
> >
> > The is not true. If it had been the same issue, the referendum on the
> > coming thursday would not have been needed.
>
> a legally binding undertaking not to enter the third phase of EMU
> without a new referendum. However, that does not mean that a
> referendum on the single currency could not have been made necessary
> even if no such undertaking had been made prior to the re-referendum.
> Nothing would afaik have prevented Folketinget from passing a law
> making a referendum a prerequisite for entering the single currency.
Aside from the fact that a "no" would have required Denmark to
break it's Treaty obligation to join on fulfilling the criteria.
Admittedly, this is exactly what Sweden has done....:-D
Richard Gregory
>
> jon...@bigfoot.com (jonivar skullerud) wrote in
> <83em28s...@theopc5.desy.de>:
>
> >a legally binding undertaking not to enter the third phase of EMU
> >without a new referendum. However, that does not mean that a
> >referendum on the single currency could not have been made necessary
> >even if no such undertaking had been made prior to the re-referendum.
> >Nothing would afaik have prevented Folketinget from passing a law
> >making a referendum a prerequisite for entering the single currency.
>
> needed is the signature of 1/3 of the MP's; but so what?
>
> >The basic issue was the Maastricht treaty. It was not just basically
> >the same, but exactly the same, word for word.
>
> But with unfortunately with these four horrible opt-outs,
Which the intial "no" made necessary. As I pointed out, the
minimum required "derrogations" (please use the Commission
approved word)....
> and therefore the
> subject for the referendum was _not_ the same.
The subject was the Maastricht Treaty in both cases. For the latter
referendum, the Treaty was modified (slightly). The subject was
therefore the same, although the detail was (slightly) different.
> And _because_ it was not the
> same, we now _must_ have a new referendum.
It is only true that the new referendum is a condition produced by
the results of the first two.
> >Now, after the no-side wins the referendum on thursday, how long do
> >you think it will be before your beloved politicians start calling for
> >a new referendum?
>
> Well, first of all I still hope for a lucky outcome on thursday ;-)
>
> Things are moving in the right direction, and the no-campaign has done a
> lot of good with all their lies about the pensions and the Baltic nations.
> It really seems as if a lot of people have finally started thinking.
And of course it's pure coincidence that the Banks intervene to prop up
the euro a few days beforehand. And they say Milosevic rigs the vote!
> But _if_ the worst should really happen, I really dare not guess, when we
> may get a second chance. There first has to be some kind of occasion for
> it. If the UK or Sweden would join the € or if the Danish kroners would get
> into serious trouble on the money-marked, that might be a sufficient
> reason.
I would say after the minimum decent period of mourning by your
politicians...who will have a useful stick to beat public opinion
with after the French and Germans make remarks about "the
European construction endangered by one country" and "convoys
held back by one player" etc etc. Just as they did last time.
On the other hand, a "nej" would probably send the euro spiralling
down in value, thus (according to you) making it even more
competetive. :-D
Lars Jørgen Helbo
@interalpha.co.uk>:
>Wrong. The issue is exactly the same: you are having a referendum
>now to decide whether to retain your "derrogation" on joining EMU or
>not. Remember without it, Denmark would have been legally *obliged*
>to join provided it fulfilled the criteria.
Oh please, would you mind stopping this rubbish. According to the treaty
from Edinburgh, which was the amendment to the treaty from Maastricht, we
have an opt-out. This means that we are _not_ obliged to join the third
phase of the EMU.
jdc
> >Wrong. The issue is exactly the same: you are having a referendum
> >now to decide whether to retain your "derrogation" on joining EMU or
> >not. Remember without it, Denmark would have been legally *obliged*
> >to join provided it fulfilled the criteria.
>
> Oh please, would you mind stopping this rubbish.
?
> According to the treaty
> from Edinburgh,
The accord from Edinburgh.
> which was the amendment to the treaty from Maastricht,
A postscript to.
> we have an opt-out.
You do indeed.
> This means that we are _not_ obliged to join the third
> phase of the EMU.
Which is exactly what Richard just said, which you called "rubbish".
jdcxxx
Lars Jørgen Helbo
@interalpha.co.uk>:
>Aside from the fact that a "no" would have required Denmark to
>break it's Treaty obligation to join on fulfilling the criteria.
>Admittedly, this is exactly what Sweden has done....:-D
No, not yet ;-)
The point is that Sweden can still (to some extend) claim that their
economy is not good enough to join the Euro. And the Swedish government
still has the basic intention to join the Euro. So the have not broken the
obligation, they are only working a bit slower on the fullfillment.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>The subject was the Maastricht Treaty in both cases. For the latter
>referendum, the Treaty was modified (slightly). The subject was
>therefore the same, although the detail was (slightly) different.
No, the subject for the first referendum was Mastricht, the subject for the
second referendum was Mastricht with the changes made in Edinburg.
You say that the changes were small. The majority of the Danish voters said
that it was the changes, which they wanted. I think their word is worth
more than yours ;-)
>It is only true that the new referendum is a condition produced by
>the results of the first two.
Which I have never denied.
>And of course it's pure coincidence that the Banks intervene to prop up
>the euro a few days beforehand.
IMHO yes. I don't think the central banks of the US and japan cares a lot
about the Danish referendum. At least I don't think they would throw out 40
billion USD to influence the referendum.
If they had really wanted that, they should have done it 2-3 weeks earlier.
No, the reason for the intervention on the money-marked can easily be
found. Just take a look at the US trade-figures for July and the Intels
result for the first 6 months of 2000. If you were a little less paranoid
about Europe, you would certainly realise that this was the reason.
jdc
> You say that the changes were small. The majority of the Danish voters
said
> that it was the changes, which they wanted.
Really? Since 40-odd percent of Danish voters were happy with the original,
and 40-odd percent were still unhappy with the amendments, isn't it the case
that only about 1 in 10 Danish voters wanted those changes?
jdcxxx
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<wjOz5.11578$He3.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
In 1992 49.5% voted yes and 50.5% voted no. In 1993 56% voted yes and 44%
voted no. So the margin in 1993 was 10 times as big as in 1992. This is
important, as the no-side too often (like you do here) claims that the
margins were about the same. They were definately NOT!
Secondly, you are of vourse correct that only a smaller percentage of
voters really wanted these amendments. E.g. I did NOT want them. But in
politics you have to seek a compromise, and this was what we did. This is
usually called democracy for your information ;-)
jonivar skullerud
> jonivar skullerud wrote:
> > That is not quite true. Part of the re-referendum in 1993 was indeed
> > a legally binding undertaking not to enter the third phase of EMU
> > without a new referendum. However, that does not mean that a
> > referendum on the single currency could not have been made necessary
> > even if no such undertaking had been made prior to the re-referendum.
> > Nothing would afaik have prevented Folketinget from passing a law
> > making a referendum a prerequisite for entering the single currency.
>
> Aside from the fact that a "no" would have required Denmark to
> break it's Treaty obligation to join on fulfilling the criteria.
> Admittedly, this is exactly what Sweden has done....:-D
Denmark never had any treaty obligation to join the third phase of
EMU.
jonivar skullerud
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in <39CF9598.2EE7
> @interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >Wrong. The issue is exactly the same: you are having a referendum
> >now to decide whether to retain your "derrogation" on joining EMU or
> >not. Remember without it, Denmark would have been legally *obliged*
> >to join provided it fulfilled the criteria.
>
> Oh please, would you mind stopping this rubbish. According to the treaty
> from Edinburgh, which was the amendment to the treaty from Maastricht, we
No.
1. There is no such thing as a treaty of Edinburgh.
2. The Maastricht Treaty was not amended. Not a single word was changed.
> have an opt-out. This means that we are _not_ obliged to join the third
> phase of the EMU.
3. The opt-out was there in the original Maastricht Treaty, just like
that of the UK. It is because of Maastricht, not Edinburgh, that
you are not obliged to join the third phase of EMU. This also
means that Richard was wrong in his original claim.
hth
jonivar skullerud
> The subject was the Maastricht Treaty in both cases. For the latter
> referendum, the Treaty was modified (slightly).
NO, NO, NO! How many times do i have to say this!!??
NOT A SINGLE WORD in the Maastricht Treaty was changed. Not a single
comma, not a single apostrophe.
> The subject was
> therefore the same, although the detail was (slightly) different.
The only detail which was different was the unilateral undertaking by
the danish government not to join the single currency and the common
defence policy (WEU), and not to go along with extensions of union
citizenship and common justice and home affairs policy (the latter
undertaking has already been broken).
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>Denmark never had any treaty obligation to join the third phase of
>EMU.
Exactly, because the subject of the referendum in 1993 did not include this
obligation. So by saying this, you have admitted that the subject for the
referendums in 1992 and 1993 was not the same, thankyou for this
clarification ;-)
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>The only detail which was different was the unilateral undertaking by
which was recognised by all others and therefore makes a lot of a
difference.
>the danish government not to join the single currency and the common
>defence policy (WEU), and not to go along with extensions of union
>citizenship and common justice and home affairs policy
Correct
>(the latter undertaking has already been broken).
Could you please explain just _how_ it has been broken. I happen to live
here, and I am not aware of this.
jonivar skullerud
> jon...@bigfoot.com (jonivar skullerud) wrote in
> <83vgvjz...@theopc5.desy.de>:
> >the danish government not to join the single currency and the common
> >defence policy (WEU), and not to go along with extensions of union
> >citizenship and common justice and home affairs policy
>
> Correct
>
> >(the latter undertaking has already been broken).
>
> Could you please explain just _how_ it has been broken. I happen to live
> here, and I am not aware of this.
Schengen.
hth,
jonivar skullerud
> jon...@bigfoot.com (jonivar skullerud) wrote in
> <83wvfzz...@theopc5.desy.de>:
>
> >Denmark never had any treaty obligation to join the third phase of
> >EMU.
>
> Exactly, because the subject of the referendum in 1993 did not include this
> obligation.
Not exactly. If the Maastricht Treaty had been passed at the first
attempt, there would still not have been any such obligation.
> So by saying this, you have admitted that the subject for the
> referendums in 1992 and 1993 was not the same, thankyou for this
> clarification ;-)
Wrong. See above.
As for the difference between 1992 and 1993, i have explained that
elsewhere (and previously on this group, numerous times).
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>he...@bigfoot.com (Lars Jørgen Helbo) writes:
>> Could you please explain just _how_ it has been broken. I happen to
>> live here, and I am not aware of this.
>Schengen.
I almost thought you had that in mind ;-). But you are WRONG!
The point is that Denmark is only _associated_ to Schengen. About the same
way as Norway is to the EU.
I will gladly admit that this gives us all the obligations and duties as
well as most of the advantages, but none of the influence. Therefore I also
think that we should scrap our opt-outs and become a full member; but fact
is that we are not at the moment.
jonivar skullerud
> jon...@bigfoot.com (jonivar skullerud) wrote in
> <83pulrz...@theopc5.desy.de>:
>
> >he...@bigfoot.com (Lars Jørgen Helbo) writes:
> >> Could you please explain just _how_ it has been broken. I happen to
> >> live here, and I am not aware of this.
>
> >Schengen.
>
> I almost thought you had that in mind ;-). But you are WRONG!
>
> The point is that Denmark is only _associated_ to Schengen. About the same
> way as Norway is to the EU.
I am happy to be corrected on this point. It also gives a different
gloss to the debate on Schengen in Norway. The labervative
politicians were saying that since Denmark and Sweden were joining
Schengen, Norway also had to associate with it, or the nordic passport
union would go. If Denmark is actually not fully joining Schengen, it
looks slightly different. (Telling the truth is not something the
labervatives and their media hangers-on are noted for.) How, then,
does the situation of Denmark wrt Schengen differ from that of Norway?
jdc
> The only detail which was different was the unilateral undertaking by
> the danish government not to join the single currency and the common
> defence policy (WEU), and not to go along with extensions of union
> citizenship and common justice and home affairs policy (the latter
> undertaking has already been broken).
I heard about this. What happened there?
I heard also that the current Prime Minister who is promising not to change
pensions has already broken a promise he made about pensions to be elected
in the first place. Is this the case?
jdcxxx
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>I am happy to be corrected on this point. It also gives a different
>gloss to the debate on Schengen in Norway. The labervative
>politicians were saying that since Denmark and Sweden were joining
>Schengen, Norway also had to associate with it, or the nordic passport
>union would go.
Which is absolutely correct of course. If the nordic passport union should
be maintained, we had to join Schengen at the same time - one way or the
other.
> If Denmark is actually not fully joining Schengen, it
>looks slightly different.
Not really because Sweden and Finland are.
>How, then,
>does the situation of Denmark wrt Schengen differ from that of Norway?
I have no idea, and I actually do not care a lot. I am simply happy that
from March 26th we will no longer have to show passport, when crossing the
border to Germany ;-)
jonivar skullerud
> jon...@bigfoot.com (jonivar skullerud) wrote in
> <83hf73z...@theopc5.desy.de>:
>
> >I am happy to be corrected on this point. It also gives a different
> >gloss to the debate on Schengen in Norway. The labervative
> >politicians were saying that since Denmark and Sweden were joining
> >Schengen, Norway also had to associate with it, or the nordic passport
> >union would go.
>
> Which is absolutely correct of course. If the nordic passport union should
> be maintained, we had to join Schengen at the same time - one way or the
> other.
That is a self-fulfilling prophesy. All governments want to join
Schengen, therefore all say that we have to join because the others
will, although the people in all countries are against.
> > If Denmark is actually not fully joining Schengen, it
> >looks slightly different.
>
> Not really because Sweden and Finland are.
And why is Sweden joining, although the majority of the people there
are against it?
> >How, then,
> >does the situation of Denmark wrt Schengen differ from that of Norway?
>
> I have no idea, and I actually do not care a lot. I am simply happy that
> from March 26th we will no longer have to show passport, when crossing the
> border to Germany ;-)
What difference does it make, since you have to take your passport
when you go to Germany anyway?
I cross the danish-german border quite a lot. It never bothered me a
bit. It bothers me much more that legally, i am required to carry
passport or equivalent id with me at all times, and that i am asked
for my passport for all kinds of trivial things here.
Richard Gregory
>
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in <39CF9598.2EE7
> @interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >Wrong. The issue is exactly the same: you are having a referendum
> >now to decide whether to retain your "derrogation" on joining EMU or
> >not. Remember without it, Denmark would have been legally *obliged*
> >to join provided it fulfilled the criteria.
>
> Oh please, would you mind stopping this rubbish. According to the treaty
> from Edinburgh, which was the amendment to the treaty from Maastricht, we
The Commission for some years has used the word "derrogation"; I assume
they are the authoratative voice in the matter.
This means that we are _not_ obliged to join the third
> phase of the EMU.
Correct, which is exactly what I said, if you care to read it:
I'll repeat:
Richard Gregory
>
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in <39CF9622.7C04
> @interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >Aside from the fact that a "no" would have required Denmark to
> >break it's Treaty obligation to join on fulfilling the criteria.
> >Admittedly, this is exactly what Sweden has done....:-D
>
>
> The point is that Sweden can still (to some extend) claim that their
> economy is not good enough to join the Euro.
Yes, it can, but the decision wasn't up to Sweden.
Strictly, any economy qualifying was obliged to join. The fact
is that the eurozone could do without Sweden (unlike, say,
Germany) and therefore it was politically expedient
to find a reason to permit an unwilling country to stay
outside. Just as Italy and Belgium, with their huge public
debts, were allowed in because they wished to be in.
> And the Swedish government
> still has the basic intention to join the Euro. So the have not broken the
> obligation, they are only working a bit slower on the fullfillment.
See above.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>That is a self-fulfilling prophesy. All governments want to join
>Schengen, therefore all say that we have to join because the others
>will, although the people in all countries are against.
I have not heard that the people of Denmark should be against it. Dansk
Folkeparti is, but they are not the people. The trade union of the police
is also against it, because they loose a number of nice convenient jobs at
the border.
>And why is Sweden joining, although the majority of the people there
>are against it?
Because they have an obligation to do so according to Mastricht - they have
no Edinburg-treaty.
>What difference does it make, since you have to take your passport
>when you go to Germany anyway?
What difference would it make, if you had to show your passport, when
entering Sweden or Denmark?
jonivar skullerud
> "jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote
> > The only way we may put todays wealth towards paying for future
> > pensions is by investing in future production, which primarily means
> > investing in education, but also ensuring the survival of
> > manifacturing and primary industries (including, not running down
> > finite, non-renewable resources).
>
> But pension fund money tends to go towards investing in production (usually,
> if it's a good investor),
Do you really think that productive investment is what characterises
the share markets today? Is it increased production which is
responsible for the rise in share prices we have seen? Pension funds
tend to rely (at least today) overwhelmingly on rise in share prices.
jdc
> Pension funds
> tend to rely (at least today) overwhelmingly on rise in share prices.
Share prices don't just rise for the fun of it. They rise when the company
improves market-share, profitability, productivity, etc, or there is
positive financial news about the company's base / main market, or people
want to invest in the country the shares are traded from.
jdcxxx
jonivar skullerud
> "jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>
> > In other words, live as parasites on the resources and work of people
> > in developing countries.
>
> Of course, it would be far better to leave them alone and let them develop
> technology on their own, and produce capital investment from nowhere, and
> gain marketing expertise by trial and error.
Again, you seem to have a very rosy picture of the reality of the
international capital markets, something i find very strange for
someone who calls himself a socialist.
The overwhelming proportion of foreign direct investments in third
world countries (and elsewhere) are unproductive. The greater part
are mergers and acquisitions. These serve one purpose and one purpose
only, which is to maximise the profits and windfalls to the
capitalists. Quite often they are followed by asset-stripping.
Even so-called productive investment in developing countries tends to
be associated with a complete lack of control. All the profits are
channeled back to the first-world multinational, all decisions are
made in far-away boardrooms, and local people see very few if any of
the benefits. The proper word for this system is neo-colonialism.
If foreign investment were kept under democratic control, giving local
people power to influence decisions, using profits to reinvest
locally, and with a long-term view to enabling the local economy to
stand on its own two feet; ie, with the foreign investors eventually
withdrawing and letting local people take over, it would be an
undoubted force for good. However, that is very far from the case
today, and the neoleninists that rule the world are dead-set against
any such development towards greater economic democracy.
jonivar skullerud
> "jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>
> > Pension funds
> > tend to rely (at least today) overwhelmingly on rise in share prices.
>
> Share prices don't just rise for the fun of it.
Oh, dont they? They do, actually. It is called speculative
investment. It is essentially gambling. That is what most of the
capital markets are about these days.
> They rise when the company
> improves market-share, profitability, productivity, etc, or there is
> positive financial news about the company's base / main market, or people
> want to invest in the country the shares are traded from.
If that is the case, and considering typical price/earnings ratios
today, i think we are in for a major crash in the near future.
How smart is it then to put your money into pension funds?
jdc
> > Share prices don't just rise for the fun of it.
>
> Oh, dont they? They do, actually. It is called speculative
> investment. It is essentially gambling. That is what most of the
> capital markets are about these days.
If it was essentially gambling pension funds would send someone down the
bookies...
> > They rise when the company
> > improves market-share, profitability, productivity, etc, or there is
> > positive financial news about the company's base / main market, or
people
> > want to invest in the country the shares are traded from.
>
> If that is the case, and considering typical price/earnings ratios
> today, i think we are in for a major crash in the near future.
>
> How smart is it then to put your money into pension funds?
My father's been saying this for about 20 years, and therefore doesn't have
money in pension funds, but I suspect if there were such a crash, we would
all be quite screwed anyway, wherever our money was, as the banks would
fail, and our under-the-mattress stashes would be wiped out quite quickly by
shortages and inflation.
jdcxxx
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<k45A5.1276$616....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>I heard about this. What happened there?
As I allready told in another posting this is not correct. Denmark is only
an associated member of Schengen.
>I heard also that the current Prime Minister who is promising not to
>change pensions has already broken a promise he made about pensions to
>be elected in the first place. Is this the case?
No, not really. Some years ago we got a system of early-pension for people
between 60 and 67 (at 67 you get the normal pension). The purpose of this
was to reduce unemployment, and as unemployment was falling during recent
years, a discussion started about removing this early pension again.
So during the election-campaign 1998 the PM promise that this would not
happen. However, this promise was only backed by his own labour-party and
the extreme left-wing. It was not even supported by his coalition partner
the small Radikale venstre (social-liberal). So after the election the PM
had to accept a compromise.
According to this, the normal pension age was reduced to 65, and thus the
early-pension ends at that age. The entry-age to the early pension was made
flexible. It is now 60-62, but if you wait till the age of 62 the pension
will be higher. Finally this pension is partly financed over contributions,
and these were increased.
The situation now is different. In 1998 the promise was only to _maintain_
this early-pension, he never said that it would be maintained at the same
_level_ (but many of his own voters did not understand this). Secondly the
promise was only backed by the labour-party and the extreme left, which
together has something like 40% of the MP's. All other parties had before
the election said that they wanted this early-pension scrapped.
The situation today is different. The promise made now says that the
pension (>65 years) will not be reduced. But even more important. This
promise is back by all yes-parties in a formal coalition. And there is no
possible way, in which these parties could loose their overall majority at
any election.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>Yes, it can, but the decision wasn't up to Sweden.
>Strictly, any economy qualifying was obliged to join. The fact
>is that the eurozone could do without Sweden (unlike, say,
>Germany) and therefore it was politically expedient
>to find a reason to permit an unwilling country to stay
>outside. Just as Italy and Belgium, with their huge public
>debts, were allowed in because they wished to be in.
That's politics ;-)
Sid Cochran
"Lars Jørgen Helbo" <he...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:8FB4C0A86l...@192.168.0.1...
> giles...@planet-earth-uk.freeserve.co.uk (Giles Allen) wrote in
> <8q8056$giv$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
> >Firstly, I would like to apologise for having to type this message in
> >English and not Danish.
>
> >Think yourselves lucky that you are amongst a small group of people in
> >Europe who are being given the opportunity to decide whether or not to
> >adopt the Euro. Many would like a vote, but few have been given one,
> >their Governments for whatever reason deciding to deny them a say on
> >what is one of the most important issues for generations.
>
> Then maybe you should elect another government? Besides, I thought you
were
> going to have a referendum shortly after the next general election?
>
> > Before voting, consider the following points: -
>
> >1) Are you in favour of a Federal Europe or European Super State? - If
> >not then why take a major step towards it by giving away your countries
> >financial independence.
>
> This is bullshit. As the president for the European Monetary Bank said
just
> two days ago, the existence of a common European currency does _not_ mean
> that there will have to be any further steps towards a political union.
> Such political integration may come, but it has nothing to do with the ?.
>
> >2) Think beyond the Euro - It's not just a case of different money in
> >your pocket, it's everything that goes with it.
>
> >2.1) Interest rates - These will be determined in Frankfurt supposedly
> >at the 'appropriate' level for the whole of Euroland. As Ireland is
> >finding out at the moment, this can leave you seriously disadvantaged.
> >Questions also have to be asked why France was so insistent on having a
> >French citizen as the next head of the European Central Bank. Would it
> >be to look after French interests above all others?
>
> This is nothing new. Since 1983 Danish interest rates have been determined
> in Frankfurt. This is the result of the fixed exchange rate, which the
wast
> majority on both sides in the present campaign want's to maintain.
Interesting. But a moment later, you point out that the Danish interest
rate
is 0.6% above the interest rate in Germany on the DM/Euro. The
Danes can now withdraw from the DMisation of the Danish kroneer.
If they join the ECB, according to those who post here, they can never
withdraw. and their intereest rate will be what? a weighted average
between
what is appropriate for Danes, and what's wanted by Italians and Frenchmen?
Guess what weight the financial requirements of the DK will get. Hint:
Observe the Irish punt.
> But the ? does make a difference for the interest rate. Right now the
> Danish interest rates are about 0.6 percent-point higher than the
interest-
> rate in the ?-countries. Yestoday we had this horrible opinion pool giving
> the no-side a big lead. As a result the interest-rate jumped 0.11% up.
This
> was the highest increase on any day during this year.
>
> In case of a yes at the referendum the difference between the danish and
> the ?-interestrate will very soon drop to about 0.15%. In case of a no, we
> will see a jump upwards and a long-term difference about 0.7%. (Between
the
> two referendums in 1992 and 1993 the difference was 1.9%).
>
And that interest rate won't be entirely equalized, even if the Danes
join the Euro? How strange!
> For an average family the difference between 0.15% and 0.7% makes a
> difference of something like 800 ? each year (cash after tax).
>
> >2.2) Tax - There will be serious implications regarding tax. It wouldn't
> >be long before Europe would be setting this across Euroland. Given
> >Europe's record on waste and mismanagement, together with its
> >aspirations for explanation into the poorer East, taxes would inevitably
> >have to go up to subsidise their economies.
>
> Bullshit, bullshit. There is no reason, why the ? should have any results
> on taxes.
>
> It is true of course that we do and will see a tendency to tax-
> harmonisation. E.g. Denmark has just reduced the compagny-tax to bring it
> more in line with the levels in other countries. We will within the next
> two years also see a reduction on the tax on alcohol and tobacco.
>
> But this is all a result of the internal marked, which we joined in 1986.
> It has _nothing_ to do with the ?. Besides, most people here would _love_
> to see further harmonising of tax-rates ;-)
Ah, perhaps the Danes are over-taxed in their present status? Perhaps
best to complain to their local MPs.
> >2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large
> >numbers haven't made proper provision for their old age and will
> >encounter many problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest
> >of Euroland to pay for this?
>
> What you say about Germany is a shameless lie. It is correct that the
> Germans have some problem with financing their pensions. The reason for
> this is that German pensions are very high (much higher than British or
> Danish), because Germans retire rather early (58 to 60 years) and because
> they have relatively few children. But there is no sign what so ever that
> the Germans should not be able to take care of this.
>
> Besides you could say the same about Denmark, as our pensions are paid via
> tax, which means that there is nothing like a "provision".
You mean, the Danes also have a Ponzi scheme for their pensions, like Social
Security? We;re trying to get away from that here, dure to our demographic
problems. Paying Social Security to the baby-boom generation looks like
it will be a real stretch! But maybe that problem doesn't apply in Denmark,
or elsewhere in Europe.
> >3) Don't believe the politicians when they tell you that Denmark will
> >have more influence in the future of Europe. If anything it will have
> >less. Especially with increased majority voting and the expansion into
> >the East.
>
> Denmark will indeed have more influence than we have now. Most important
> our interest rate is, as I told you, being determined in Frankfurt. It is
> of course vital for us to get influence on the way this is done, and one
> vote out of sixteen is more than zero votes.
>
> >4) Denmark's government reduced to a local council - With the Euro your
> >government will be surrendering a huge part of its decision making
> >process to Europe. Do you trust European politicians enough to make
> >decisions that will affect your everyday life and standard of living
> >even more than it does now? If you are unhappy with these politicians,
> >will it be easy to do anything about it?
>
> You really don't seem to understand anything. No additional decision
making
> is being transferred. In contrast to the UK, we have had fixed exchange
> rates since 1983 and we are a member of ERMII. Therefore the transfer of
> decision making was done long ago.
> Now we have to gain the fruits of this, lower interest rates and influence
> on the way the decisions are made.
>
> >5) Once you're in the Euro there is NO way back - NO second chance. Like
> >or lump it you're stuck with it and anything else that Europe decides is
> >'in your interest'.
>
> First of all this is not correct. If we wanted to, we could simply leave
> the EU. But more important, why should we want to do that. In 1972 about
> 37% voted no to joining the EC. In a vote about that today, the no-side
> would hardly get 10%. In 1986 about 40% voted no to the inner marked.
Today
> we can hear the very same people say that they have no intention to ever
> leave that, and you can hear leading people on the no-side claim that
"even
> if we vote no to the ?, we will of course stay in the inner marked, nobody
> would like to leave that". Most of the no-side even wants Denmark to stay
> within the ERMII and maintain the fixed exchange rates.
>
> Therefore I am pretty sure that after a yes at the referendum, nobody will
> ever seriously want to leave again. The problem simply seems to be that
the
> people on the no-side think slower ;-)
>
> >It's your choice. If you're in doubt and you're not sure how to vote,
> >isn't it better to vote NEJ now and live for another day, rather than
> >turn down that one way street that leads to the Franco-German goal of a
> >United States of Europe and forever regret your decision?
>
> Yes it is our choice, and it would be wonderful if you would respect that
> and stop making British internal politics at our cost.
> --
This omits the serious problem, the unaccountability of 'those bureaucrats
in Brussels' to any elected body, muich less to anyone for whom a Dane
ever gets to vote. Grievance before supply is an ancient watchword in
the British Parliament. But in the EuroParliament, there seems to be no
way to make the bureaucracy hear anyone's grievance, except possibly
Herr Duisenberg's (at the ECB).
> Lars Jørgen Helbo <la...@helbo.com>
> http://mrohs-helbo.homepage.dk
> http://haurumsall.cjb.net
> http://www.salldata.dk
>
Regards,
Sid Cochran
Tyler, Texas
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<BgCA5.35057$A4.11...@news1.giganews.com>:
>Interesting. But a moment later, you point out that the Danish interest
>rate is 0.6% above the interest rate in Germany on the DM/Euro. The
>Danes can now withdraw from the DMisation of the Danish kroneer.
But the point is that this is not going to happen. We have 18 years of very
good experience with the fixed exchange rates. In contrast to the UK, we
never left the EMS and we are a full member of ERMII. And most important
this policy has an overwhelming support. Even among those, who oppose the
Euro, you will hardly find anybody, who oppose ERMII.
The reason for this is probably that our economy is so closely linked with
the German. 50% of our foreign trade is with the Euro-countries. When the
UK and Sweden joins the Euro in a few years, it will even be 70%. In
contrast to this our trade with the US is only 6%. Because of this, leaving
the ERMII would have devastating consequences for our foreign trade, which
also makes up a very high percentage of our BNP. Even the majority of the
people in the no-campaign knows and understands this.
In fact only 5 MP's (out of 179) would at present be ready to support
leaving the ERMII. So what you suggest is blank theory, it will not happen.
>If they join the ECB, according to those who post here, they can never
>withdraw. and their intereest rate will be what? a weighted average
>between what is appropriate for Danes, and what's wanted by Italians and
>Frenchmen? Guess what weight the financial requirements of the DK will
>get. Hint: Observe the Irish punt.
If we join the Euro our interest rate will be about 0.7 percentage-points
below the level that we will have, if we stay outside the Euro and in the
ERMII. And as I said, leaving ERMII is out of the question.
--
Morten Sorensen
>
> Firstly, I would like to apologise for having to type this message in
> English and not Danish.
Why ? This isn't dk.politik ...
> Think yourselves lucky that you are amongst a small group of people in
> Europe who are being given the opportunity to decide whether or not to adopt
> the Euro.
IMHO this vote is a joke. We should have votes whether to join the EU
fully (i.e. abondon all the clauses we accepted in 1993).
This vote is way to technical to leave to ordinary people. To
realistically evaluate what abandoning a currency for another, one needs
a lot of facts straight.
People have been prone to pretty blatant lies from both sides - which
prevents the democratic informed choice.
> Many would like a vote, but few have been given one, their
> Governments for whatever reason deciding to deny them a say on what is one
> of the most important issues for generations.
I am pleased that we get to vote - but only when we have an actual
choice. Here we have people voting yes-politicians into Parliament [as
they will in the next general election which will be called on Tuesday
probably] - and then preventing them from exercising their policies...
It sucks...
> Before voting, consider the following points: -
>
> 1) Are you in favour of a Federal Europe or European Super State? - If not
> then why take a major step towards it by giving away your countries
> financial independence.
Understand this : This vote is/was on whether we should join the third
stage of the EMU. We are in the second which means our currency already
is bound to the Euro - we already have to meet the 'convergence
criteria' [the limits on deficit, spending, inflation]. There are only
two differences :
1) It remains to be seen whether we could actually be findes for having
too large deficit - like full memebrs can.
2) We have 0.0% say in what goes on in Frankfurt - we would get some say
[not a lot obviously]
Another thing you must understand is that Denmarks financial
independence was given up in 1982 when the SocialDemocrats abandonned
ship and left a nearly bankrupt country to the Conservatives. They tied
the DKK to the Deutsche Mark - which we have done ever since. Even the
main left wing party [left of the Socialdemocrats] see this as a sound
economic policy.
Whenever the Germans raised interest rates we followed. Regradless of
whether Denmark joins the Euro, our currency will follow the Euro. This
is a simple fact. Everyone in parliament wants this - except for the
extreme left [3%].
So : it is a fact that we will have a currency bound to the Euro - but
with slightly higher interest rates [because we _could_ go crazy].
The economic question people realistically must ask themselves is
whether preserving the [theoretical?] right/possibility of changing
economic policy is worth paying higher interest rates. That is the
bottom line - financially.
> 2) Think beyond the Euro - It's not just a case of different money in your
> pocket, it's everything that goes with it.
I agree - which is why we should have voted on something wider than the
above technicalities...
> 2.1) Interest rates - These will be determined in Frankfurt supposedly at
> the 'appropriate' level for the whole of Euroland.
The Danish interest rates have been decided there for 18 years - a
policy no one wants to change [except the far left].
> As Ireland is finding out
> at the moment, this can leave you seriously disadvantaged.
Yes - Ireland is the special case - and the first real Euro problem. It
will be interesting to see how that works out..
> Questions also
> have to be asked why France was so insistent on having a French citizen as
> the next head of the European Central Bank. Would it be to look after French
> interests above all others?
Probably. This is also why Denmark must join. Not that we have immense
power - but surely no one will listen when we are outside the Euro...
> 2.2) Tax - There will be serious implications regarding tax. It wouldn't be
> long before Europe would be setting this across Euroland.
A _big_ issue here in DK. We have a huge tax-financed welfare system.
People _will_not_ give this up.
When the time comes we will vote on tis as well. At present such a
proposal would stand zero chance of passing. [Which I think is good].
> Given Europe's
> record on waste and mismanagement, together with its aspirations for
> explanation into the poorer East, taxes would inevitably have to go up to
> subsidise their economies.
Which is fine. I am all for new countries joining. denmark is actually
not even a contributor to the the EU - we actually get more money than
we pay.
> 2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large numbers
> haven't made proper provision for their old age and will encounter many
> problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest of Euroland to pay
> for this?
Why would Euroland pay this ? That is an internal german problem.
> 3) Don't believe the politicians when they tell you that Denmark will have
> more influence in the future of Europe. If anything it will have less.
I disagree. This is a 'democracy of the active'. If you don't even show
up - you will off course not influence anything.
At the moment we have 0% influence on things relating to us. All in all,
I think Europe will be moving towards Denmark when it comes to most
things [environmental policies, benefits...]. We need to be heard.
> Especially with increased majority voting and the expansion into the East.
Yes, our influence will be diluted - but that's democracy.
> 4) Denmark's government reduced to a local council - With the Euro your
> government will be surrendering a huge part of its decision making process
> to Europe.
The EU will be making the decisions that need to be common to Europe,
whereas the local decisions will be left to the proper authorities [at
least this is the theory].
Denmark's government is a local council already. Only blind nationalists
don't see this.
> Do you trust European politicians enough to make decisions that
> will affect your everyday life and standard of living even more than it does
> now? If you are unhappy with these politicians, will it be easy to do
> anything about it?
Well, it remains to be seen how the EU will work. Will it be through the
EU Parliament or through the governments of the nation states ?
> 5) Once you're in the Euro there is NO way back - NO second chance. Like or
> lump it you're stuck with it and anything else that Europe decides is 'in
> your interest'.
Well, we have been living with apadting to whatever was in the German
interest. I don't think the difference will be that great - plus we will
have a say if we vote yes.
> It's your choice. If you're in doubt and you're not sure how to vote, isn't
> it better to vote NEJ now and live for another day, rather than turn down
> that one way street that leads to the Franco-German goal of a United States
> of Europe and forever regret your decision?
Or vote yes like the politicians you votes for to represent you.
>
> Don't waste your vote - Vote NEJ and keep Denmark's independence.
Vote no and prolong the illusion of independence.....
morten sorensen
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<39D31E7F...@pure.dk>:
>I am pleased that we get to vote - but only when we have an actual
>choice. Here we have people voting yes-politicians into Parliament [as
>they will in the next general election which will be called on Tuesday
>probably] - and then preventing them from exercising their policies...
IMHO we will _only_ get an election in case of a yes today. But I agree
with the rest.
Herman Beun
39D31E7F...@pure.dk...
> Understand this : This vote is/was on whether we should join
> the third stage of the EMU. We are in the second which means
> our currency already is bound to the Euro - we already have
> to meet the 'convergence criteria' [the limits on deficit,
> spending, inflation]. There are only two differences :
[...]
I agree with quite a lot of what Morten wrote. I must say that I never
thought that the euro as such was a good idea, and I still stick to that
opinion. The EU was and is not ready for it, if it ever should be. But
now the euro exists in 12 of the 15 countries, there is a different
situation. It is difficult to see how we could stop the project now in a
realistic way, i.e. not doing more damage than we are trying to avoid
(Any suggestions are most welcome though). So at least as long as the
euro exists, I see no better option than trying to get the euro work as
well as possible, or at least trying to avoid as much of the damage as
possible.
Having said this, I do hope that Denmark votes 'no' today. Not because I
believe that as things are now, a 'no' is in the interest of Denmark. It
most probably isn't, for exactly the reasons that Morten gave. But I do
think that a 'no' is in the interest of the EU. The euro was one of
those typical EU, huge, radical, megalomaniac projects carried through
without securing there was public support for it first. Public
confidence in the EU is lower than it has ever been. Yet, most
politicians, especially at the national level, do not seem to have
learned anything, and are still carrying on as they always did with
Europe. Other euro-like projects, like the enlargement of the EU with
the states in Central and Eastern Europe, and the radical and necessary
changes to the EU's administrative structure this entails, develop in
the same unstoppable and secretive way as their predecessors. Choices
are not made or postponed endlessly, voter fears are played down,
denied, or dealt with by increasing secrecy even further.
A 'no' from Denmark today might learn our politicians a lesson. A 'yes'
most likely will not.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herman Beun http://www.bigfoot.com/~hermanb/
Her...@bigfoot.com Brussel, Vlaanderen
-------------------------------------------------------------
European Parliament, ELDR (NL-D66), http://www.vanderlaan.net
-------------------------------------------------------------
*representative democracy is a contradiction in 4 year terms*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lars Jørgen Helbo
@nereid.worldonline.nl>:
>A 'no' from Denmark today might learn our politicians a lesson. A 'yes'
>most likely will not.
I really don't think so. It will most of all be seen as a result of right-
winged extremism and nationalism. The media will see it as a victory for
Pia Kjærsgaard _only_ and they will draw a direct line from Haider to this.
Then they will say, this is nothing to learn from, but only something to
fight against.
jdc
> I really don't think so. It will
> most of all be seen as a result of right-
> winged extremism and nationalism.
> The media will see it as a victory for
> Pia Kjærsgaard _only_
Only if they are very stupid. Since less than 10% say they would vote for
her, if over half vote no, that means over 80% of no-voters do not support
her.
> Then they will say, this is nothing
> to learn from, but only something to
> fight against.
Then they will be defeated again and again until they listen to the people
they claim to serve.
jdcxxx
Herman Beun
8FBDAFB38l...@192.168.0.1...
> I really don't think so. It will most of all be seen as a result of
right-
> winged extremism and nationalism. The media will see it as a victory
for
> Pia Kjærsgaard _only_ and they will draw a direct line from Haider to
this.
You can't think Danish media are that bad, most of them are arguing for
the 'yes'-side... ;-)
Anyway, it would be ridiculous to portray a 'no' outcome as a victory
for the extreme right. If that analysis would hold, around 50% of the
Danes would "vote for the extreme right" whatever the outcome of the
referendum -- after all, a 'yes' would be very close too. And indeed, as
John Courouble (if that is jdcxx's name) points out, only a small
proportion of the Danes would vote Dansk Folkeparti in a general
election and actually supports extreme right policies. As I see it, the
vote today is not really about the euro. It is much more a vote of
confidence in the EU as a whole.
With that in mind, the 'yes'-side in Denmark has actually come a long
way already, considering that euroskepsis in Denmark is currently less
widespread than in a traditionally pro-EU country like the Netherlands.
It just shows how important and useful it is to have referenda, if you
want to inform the public and take away fears about ongoing political
projects.
jonivar skullerud
> 2) We have 0.0% say in what goes on in Frankfurt - we would get some say
I will be generous and say you would have about 0.01% say.
Strictly speaking, you would still have 0.0% say. You have to ask
yourself, who is "we"? Who is the mythical "we" who would gain
influence? The ECB is independent. It is not allowed to take heed of
the democratic expressions of the will of the people. The governor of
the danish central bank is not supposed to represent you. And, i
would dare to say, he does not represent you in reality either. He
represents a particular clan of the orthodox economic priesthood.
The argument "we must go in to gain influence" is utterly bogus when
it comes to the euro.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
@nereid.worldonline.nl>:
>You can't think Danish media are that bad, most of them are arguing for
>the 'yes'-side... ;-)
I was not thinking about Danish media. I was thinking about international
media and politicians.
>Anyway, it would be ridiculous to portray a 'no' outcome as a victory
>for the extreme right. If that analysis would hold, around 50% of the
>Danes would "vote for the extreme right"
But people do not vote with their parties anyway, so this is not really a
valid argument.
Richard Gregory
>
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in
> <39D0EC...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >Yes, it can, but the decision wasn't up to Sweden.
> >Strictly, any economy qualifying was obliged to join. The fact
> >is that the eurozone could do without Sweden (unlike, say,
> >Germany) and therefore it was politically expedient
> >to find a reason to permit an unwilling country to stay
> >outside. Just as Italy and Belgium, with their huge public
> >debts, were allowed in because they wished to be in.
>
> That's politics ;-)
Funny how EMU is always sold as an economic project though,
isn't it? Like it was by your Government before today's
referendum.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>Strictly speaking, you would still have 0.0% say. You have to ask
>yourself, who is "we"? Who is the mythical "we" who would gain
>influence? The ECB is independent. It is not allowed to take heed of
>the democratic expressions of the will of the people. The governor of
>the danish central bank is not supposed to represent you. And, i
>would dare to say, he does not represent you in reality either. He
>represents a particular clan of the orthodox economic priesthood.
I am sory to sya that the is bullshit.
It is correct that the ECB is independent. So is and has allways been the
Danish National Bank. However, they are both working on the basis of
political guidelines.
The Danish National Bank right now has a political guideline that it _must_
mantain the fixed exchangerate towards the DM/Euro. ECB has a political
guideline telling it to keep inflation within certain limits.
So these banks are only independent within a political framework
Richard Gregory
>
> squi...@ballistic.com (Sid Cochran) wrote in
> <BgCA5.35057$A4.11...@news1.giganews.com>:
>
> >rate is 0.6% above the interest rate in Germany on the DM/Euro. The
> >Danes can now withdraw from the DMisation of the Danish kroneer.
>
No, the point is that is *can* happen.
Entering full EMU is a quite different matter.
> We have 18 years of very
> good experience with the fixed exchange rates. In contrast to the UK, we
> never left the EMS and we are a full member of ERMII. And most important
> this policy has an overwhelming support. Even among those, who oppose the
> Euro, you will hardly find anybody, who oppose ERMII.
>
> The reason for this is probably that our economy is so closely linked with
> the German. 50% of our foreign trade is with the Euro-countries. When the
> UK and Sweden joins the Euro in a few years
Nothing like unfounded optimism.
> In fact only 5 MP's (out of 179) would at present be ready to support
> leaving the ERMII. So what you suggest is blank theory, it will not happen.
>
> >If they join the ECB, according to those who post here, they can never
> >withdraw. and their intereest rate will be what? a weighted average
> >between what is appropriate for Danes, and what's wanted by Italians and
> >Frenchmen? Guess what weight the financial requirements of the DK will
> >get. Hint: Observe the Irish punt.
>
> If we join the Euro our interest rate will be about 0.7 percentage-points
> below the level that we will have, if we stay outside the Euro and in the
> ERMII. And as I said, leaving ERMII is out of the question.
Thus neatly avoiding all the points the poster has raised. :-D
Richard Gregory
>
> jon...@bigfoot.com (jonivar skullerud) wrote in
> <838zscv...@theopc5.desy.de>:
>
> >Strictly speaking, you would still have 0.0% say. You have to ask
> >yourself, who is "we"? Who is the mythical "we" who would gain
> >influence? The ECB is independent. It is not allowed to take heed of
> >the democratic expressions of the will of the people. The governor of
> >the danish central bank is not supposed to represent you. And, i
> >would dare to say, he does not represent you in reality either. He
> >represents a particular clan of the orthodox economic priesthood.
>
> I am sory to sya that the is bullshit.
No, it is absolutely correct.
>
> It is correct that the ECB is independent. So is and has allways been the
> Danish National Bank. However, they are both working on the basis of
> political guidelines.
>
> The Danish National Bank right now has a political guideline that it _must_
> mantain the fixed exchangerate towards the DM/Euro. ECB has a political
> guideline telling it to keep inflation within certain limits.
Yes, that is it's mandate by Treaty.
> So these banks are only independent within a political framework
However, the Danish Bank is subject solely to the Danish Government;
I don't know how "independent" it is. For example, it would be quite
easy for the British Government to re-assume control of the
"independent"
Bank of England since it is independent only at the "whim" of
the Government of the day. The Bundesbank, however, was much more
so and was more safeguarded against political meddling...
But the ECB is even more than that. Thus the "influence" you speak
is the real "bullshit" here. At present, the ECB takes little note
of Denmark since it's not part of the eurozone. And it will still
take little note of Denmark even if it becomes part of the
eurozone, because it'll only be a small part - which is what Ireland
is now finding out. In either case, the ECB probably takes more note
of the UK in or out since it is a much larger part of the overall
European economy :-D
And the poster is correct when he states that persons in the ECB
DO NOT represent the countries they come from; just like Commissioners
who specifically undertake NOT to represent their home states nor
attach special consideration to them.
Oh and the ECB has already failed it's inflation target.
Herman Beun
39D3AD...@interalpha.co.uk...
> And it will still take little note of
> Denmark even if it becomes part of the
> eurozone, because it'll only be a small
> part - which is what Ireland is now
> finding out.
Ireland (the Irish decisionmakers: employers, unions, government) has
entirely itself to blame for the high inflation it is seeing now. Not
the ECB. The Irish just shouldn't have raised their wages and lowered
their taxes as much as they did. Let them pay for it then.
Herman Beun
838zscv...@theopc5.desy.de...
> The argument "we must go in to gain influence" is
> utterly bogus when it comes to the euro.
No, it is not IMO. It depends amongst others on your concept of what a
central bank's (whether it is Danish or European) tasks are wrt to
maintaining monetary stability. The idea of having an independent
central bank is indeed that it deals mostly with technical matters. The
prime responsibility for price stability is with the decision-makers on
(any of) the political level(s), the central bank just sets interest and
deposito rates for the entire economic area it is responsible for, in
accordance with and subject to the economic situation created by the
political decision-makers. In countries with a long tradition of central
bank independency (at least in the one I come from), central bank
decisions are not considered political decisions, therefore "keeping
influence on the central bank" is often a non-issue there. I suspect
that part of the British distrust for the euro has to do with the fact
that the UK hardly has any tradition of central bank independence, as a
result of which its political decision-makers do not know how to deal
with their part of the responsibility.
As for Denmark, since it does follow the euro rate, it is of course
important that the state of its economy is included the ECB's
decision-making considerations as well, even if the ECB itself is
independent. But more importantly, the ECB is not the only place of
interest you want to be a part of. There is Ecofin as well, the Council
of Ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance which, as economic
integration in the EU proceeds (and it does, especially since the euro),
is ever gaining in influence. Since the euro started, the ministers of
the so-called Euro-11 (soon Euro-12 when Greece joins) have begun to
have "informal meetings" just before the official Ecofin Councils start,
in order to discuss economic and financial policy concerning the
eurozone. "Informal meetings" of course, but the reality is of course
different, since many compromises and negotiations are concluded here,
before the official meeting of Ecofin. The non-euro countries have
started to complain already that they are losing influence.
So, what Denmark effectively voted 'no' to yesterday, is having
influence _in the Council_ on much of the economic and financial policy
of the _entire_ EU. That's why I said yesterday that a 'no' was not in
the interest of Denmark.
jonivar skullerud
> jon...@bigfoot.com (jonivar skullerud) wrote in
> <83aecvy...@theopc5.desy.de>:
>
> >That is a self-fulfilling prophesy. All governments want to join
> >Schengen, therefore all say that we have to join because the others
> >will, although the people in all countries are against.
>
> I have not heard that the people of Denmark should be against it. Dansk
> Folkeparti is, but they are not the people.
So, has there been an informed debate about it? Have there been
opinion polls? Or has the decision just been handed down from on
high?
> >And why is Sweden joining, although the majority of the people there
> >are against it?
>
> Because they have an obligation to do so according to Mastricht - they have
> no Edinburg-treaty.
1. There is no such thing as an Edinburg (sic) Treaty.
2. There is nothing about Schengen in Maastricht.
3. Schengen is incorporated into EU with the Amsterdam Treaty.
However, UK and Ireland were able to continue to stand outside
Schengen. So to would Sweden if the government wanted to. There
is no obligation to belong to Schengen.
> >What difference does it make, since you have to take your passport
> >when you go to Germany anyway?
>
> What difference would it make, if you had to show your passport, when
> entering Sweden or Denmark?
There is a difference, in that when travelling within the nordic
countries i do not need to take my passport at all.
jonivar
(in Altona, wishing that it would decide to rejoin Denmark ;)
Richard Gregory
>
> Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 39D3AD...@interalpha.co.uk...
>
> > And it will still take little note of
> > Denmark even if it becomes part of the
> > eurozone, because it'll only be a small
> > part - which is what Ireland is now
> > finding out.
>
> Ireland (the Irish decisionmakers: employers, unions, government) has
> entirely itself to blame for the high inflation it is seeing now. Not
> the ECB. The Irish just shouldn't have raised their wages and lowered
> their taxes as much as they did. Let them pay for it then.
This does not change the fact that Irish needs have little to do
with the interest rates set by the ECB for the eurozone. This
is quite logical since Ireland is such a small part of it.
As you point out, if the Irish didn't realise this that is their
problem. In any case, it is quite obvious that Ireland wasn't as
"converged" as was made out; but then, since when did economics
have anything to do with it?
jdc
> Ireland (the Irish decisionmakers
>: employers, unions, government) has
> entirely itself to blame for the
> high inflation it is seeing now. Not
> the ECB. The Irish just shouldn't
> have raised their wages and lowered
> their taxes as much as they did.
> Let them pay for it then.
Of course if they had the right interest rates, there would be no such
problem.
I like your premise though - can we put that in the referendum; "would you
like to join the Euro, or would you like higher taxes and lower wages?"
jdcxxx
Objective observer
"Giles Allen" <giles...@planet-earth-uk.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
They have voted it down. They did not want to possibly lose their
sovereignity as well as their power in the EU and quite possibly their
money as well thru devaluation. Kind of makes you wonder why the
government in Denmark was so hep about wanting to vote to be positive.
Sunarise
> Firstly, I would like to apologise for having to type this message in
> English and not Danish.
>
> Think yourselves lucky that you are amongst a small group of people in
> Europe who are being given the opportunity to decide whether or not
to adopt
> the Euro. Many would like a vote, but few have been given one, their
> Governments for whatever reason deciding to deny them a say on what
is one
> of the most important issues for generations.
>
> Before voting, consider the following points: -
>
> 1) Are you in favour of a Federal Europe or European Super State? -
If not
> then why take a major step towards it by giving away your countries
> financial independence.
>
> 2) Think beyond the Euro - It's not just a case of different money in
your
> pocket, it's everything that goes with it.
>
> 2.1) Interest rates - These will be determined in Frankfurt
supposedly at
> the 'appropriate' level for the whole of Euroland. As Ireland is
finding out
> at the moment, this can leave you seriously disadvantaged. Questions
also
> have to be asked why France was so insistent on having a French
citizen as
> the next head of the European Central Bank. Would it be to look after
French
> interests above all others?
>
> 2.2) Tax - There will be serious implications regarding tax. It
wouldn't be
> long before Europe would be setting this across Euroland. Given
Europe's
> record on waste and mismanagement, together with its aspirations for
> explanation into the poorer East, taxes would inevitably have to go
up to
> subsidise their economies.
>
> 2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large
numbers
> haven't made proper provision for their old age and will encounter
many
> problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest of Euroland
to pay
> for this?
>
> 3) Don't believe the politicians when they tell you that Denmark will
have
> more influence in the future of Europe. If anything it will have less.
> Especially with increased majority voting and the expansion into the
East.
>
> 4) Denmark's government reduced to a local council - With the Euro
your
> government will be surrendering a huge part of its decision making
process
> to Europe. Do you trust European politicians enough to make decisions
that
> will affect your everyday life and standard of living even more than
it does
> now? If you are unhappy with these politicians, will it be easy to do
> anything about it?
>
> 5) Once you're in the Euro there is NO way back - NO second chance.
Like or
> lump it you're stuck with it and anything else that Europe decides
is 'in
> your interest'.
>
> It's your choice. If you're in doubt and you're not sure how to vote,
isn't
> it better to vote NEJ now and live for another day, rather than turn
down
> that one way street that leads to the Franco-German goal of a United
States
> of Europe and forever regret your decision?
>
> Don't waste your vote - Vote NEJ and keep Denmark's independence.
>
> Giles Allen
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Herman Beun
eY6B5.1517$uq5....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> I like your premise though - can we put that
> in the referendum; "would you like to join
> the Euro, or would you like higher taxes
> and lower wages?"
Instead of a higher interest rate? Sure. Life is about making choices.
Herman Beun
> As you point out, if the Irish didn't realise
> this that is their problem. In any case, it
> is quite obvious that Ireland wasn't as
> "converged" as was made out; but then,
> since when did economics have anything
> to do with it?
I never said otherwise than that the euro was a political project and
that the euro countries were not converged enough.
The same governments that took the decision to go ahead with the euro
project are now failing to take the responsibilities that came with it,
so forgive me if I feel little empathy for the Irish now. OTOH, the
Irish example is not a very good argument against the euro project as
such: the Irish problems could have been avoided rather easily, and the
convergence process until now has shown that learning can be very quick.
It will be much more interesting to see what happens as soon as one of
the euro countries starts lagging behind.
jonivar skullerud
> "jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>
> > > Share prices don't just rise for the fun of it.
> >
> > Oh, dont they? They do, actually. It is called speculative
> > investment. It is essentially gambling. That is what most of the
> > capital markets are about these days.
>
> If it was essentially gambling pension funds would send someone down the
> bookies...
No, they are a lot more advanced than that. They employ
mathematicians and theoretical physicists to work out the odds.
> > If that is the case, and considering typical price/earnings ratios
> > today, i think we are in for a major crash in the near future.
> >
> > How smart is it then to put your money into pension funds?
>
> My father's been saying this for about 20 years, and therefore doesn't have
> money in pension funds, but I suspect if there were such a crash, we would
> all be quite screwed anyway, wherever our money was, as the banks would
> fail, and our under-the-mattress stashes would be wiped out quite quickly by
> shortages and inflation.
Obviously, stashing money under the mattress is not terribly smart.
But that is completely missing the point. Those who do such things
suffer even more from the delusion that money is something real than
those who advocate pension funds as the "solution".
On the private level, the safest thing would be to put your money into
real values, eg real estate. But that is not the issue. The issue is
how society as a whole, as opposed to private individuals, should
handle the perceived upcoming crisis. And on this level, saying that
pension funds will solve the problem is the equivalent of money under
the mattress. It is mistaking money for something real, and
completely ignoring the real economy.
(Actually, the real equivalent of money under the mattress is what
Norway is doing: stashing all the oil proceedings in a "petroleum
fund" which must invest overseas. It would be much smarter to leave
the oil where it is.)
The issue is how much is produced in the future society we are looking
at. Any sensible strategy must have as its main aim to ensure that
this production is sufficient to meet the needs of the people in that
society, including the pensioners. Importing labour is one such
strategy, although not entirely without drawbacks. Raising the age of
retirement is another. Investing in education and research, and in
preventive health (ensuring a healthier labour force) is a third -- as
long-term strategies these have a greater potential than investing in
possibly productive companies here and now (unless we are talking
about a long-term industry strategy). A fourth might be ensuring
consumption is less wasteful, allowing people to live well on less.
Whether the pensioners get their share of the production from
governments taxing the proceeds of it, or from pension funds
distributing part of the profits, is pretty much irrelevant. However,
it is not irrelevant if an insistence on private solutions make
long-term strategies near-impossible, or even lead people to deny the
need for long-term strategies.
jonivar
Fred Blogs
>> Yes it is our choice, and it would be wonderful if you would respect that
>> and stop making British internal politics at our cost.
>> --
>This omits the serious problem, the unaccountability of 'those bureaucrats
>in Brussels' to any elected body, muich less to anyone for whom a Dane
>ever gets to vote. Grievance before supply is an ancient watchword in
>the British Parliament. But in the EuroParliament, there seems to be no
>way to make the bureaucracy hear anyone's grievance, except possibly
>Herr Duisenberg's (at the ECB).
>
> Sid Cochran
> Tyler, Texas
>
seems to be that only Yanks can see this. And we get accused of being
poor Europeans.
Give the EP the rights to recommend, appoint and dismiss the civil
servants at the EC, and just maybe the Brits will take this whole
European thing seriously. Whilst the EC is a law unto itself we will
not.
Fred Blogs, London, UK
fredb...@hotmail.com
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> Lars Jørgen Helbo wrote:
> > That's politics ;-)
>
> Funny how EMU is always sold as an economic project though,
> isn't it? Like it was by your Government before today's
> referendum.
When following the debate, I was surprised by how political it was and
how little economic it was. But ok, then I foresaw that it would be very
economic in its character.
/Malte Lewan Neelsen
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> But the ECB is even more than that. Thus the "influence" you speak
> is the real "bullshit" here. At present, the ECB takes little note
> take little note of Denmark even if it becomes part of the
> eurozone, because it'll only be a small part - which is what Ireland
> is now finding out.
The same is true for most regions in the UK. They only become small
parts of the whole.
/Malte Lewan Neelsen
Fred Blogs
>
>> 2.3) Pensions - It is well known that Germany's workforce in large numbers
>> haven't made proper provision for their old age and will encounter many
>> problems in years to come. Would it be right for the rest of Euroland to pay
>> for this?
>
>Why would Euroland pay this ? That is an internal german problem.
If only it were that simple. However, the facts of monetary life are
such that the international speculators (whom we all love so much and
have to learn to live with) look for such things as high/low tax and
high/low government spending as well as GNP etc. In the economy of the
old DM, GNP could well have balanced off government spending, but in the
Eurozone overall this may well not be the case. The simplest remedy for
strengthening the Euro is to reduce tax levels and reduce government
spending right across the board. This does not mean A sacrifice of
social welfare/pensions, merely that a different approach is taken,
namely the privatisation of such services and benefits.
The trick that makes all of this work is adequate government inspection
and regulation: a relatively low cost operation, for which government
agencies are well suited. If tackled in the right way, further benefits
with this approach are the introduction of competition driving down
costs and improving performance.
If you haven't already guessed, this is a perception of the US model.
Fred
Fred Blogs, London, UK
fredb...@hotmail.com
The regulation of the EC bureaucracy by
the democratically elected EP must be the
indispensible first condition for further
integration and/or extension of the EU.