Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone View Post
A couple of thoughts:

"Lie #3 - The Euro. Based on lies from the off. - A decent enough idea on paper but, 18 months before it came into existence they published the financial criteria countries would have to meet to join up. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and others were nowhere near meeting the requirements. 18 months later as if by magic (or by "creative accounting") they all met the criteria. Too many countries were not stable enough financially and that is the reason it hasn't become the strong currency it could have."

The central point that you miss here is that you cannot have a harmonious shared currency without a common, consistent tax policy. Southern Europe has a totally different perspective on tax than northern europe, eastern europe is still more out of synch. Yet they still share a currency which will forever be weakened by the weakest link.

Now you would think, would you not, that the northern european power economies would want to sort this out. But they dont. Why? Simples - a weak Euro is brilliant for Germany. if it was to operate its own currency, representative of their economic well being and so stronger and more powerful than the watered down euro, their exports would be much more expensive. They have effectively "borrowed" the underperforming economies lack of power to weaken the common currency that they use, and so export cheaply and they have enjoyed the benefits of a ramped up economy for years as a result. In the same way as the enfeebled economies should not be in the euro, nor should Germany if one wants equity.

The Germans love the weak links and are happy to subsidise their continuing euro and EU membership because of the greater, wider benefit on exports. Kick the Greeks out, the Euro strengthens, so Germany props up the Greek economy but keeps control over it by rates charged on loans. If the Greek economy were ever able to improve, the Germans can manipulate it back down to keep the euro where they want it. Win Win for Germany, Lose Lose for Greece.

"I have explained in other posts why I don't believe we need between 50 and 60 million migrants over the next 10 to 20 years. The elite think we do. IMO for no other reason than to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed. It won't benefit the man in the street one iota."

There are two main reasons for continued EU immigration as I see it. Im not going to quibble over numbers, its more a principles thing here. (1) the wealthy can benefit because there is cheap labour pool brought here, allowing for better competition with the far eastern cheap labour based economies.

But more critically, and this will benefit everyone who has a pension or an NHS (2) the EU birth rate is falling, and mortality rates are rising. As a result we have an ever growing non working population being funded in illness and retirement by an ever shrinking workforce paying taxes/NI etc. Thus there arent enough people to pay for the ones already there, and who are hanging around for longer.

This isnt just an EU thing, its been the case in Japan for a long time. Again the Germans jumped onto the idea first within EU and recruited all the best refugee talent early, but as more EU economies get to the same position the need for more labour from outside will escalate, maybe to levels you mention, out of need to support the ageing population, not to make some more pennies for the wealthy - who have already globalised themselves anyway. Immigration from outside the EU, or from stronger to weaker economies within the EU is ***** (oops I mean crucial) for all people.
Don't disagree with some of the points, though your rather kind to the Greeks who were architects of their own downfall albeit aided and abetted by the EU.

However, immigration is not something that is ****e for the average person in the street, a glance at the service industry, the agricultural industry, the construction industry and services such as the NHS would tell anyone that there is a need for labour - given that we are in a state of full employment, there clearly isn't a great pool of UK labour available or indeed capable of filling the gap - the economy would be ****ed without immigration.

These things go in cycles anyway, as economic conditions improve then many will return home after having contributed in a massive way to the economic prosperity of the UK from which all of us have benefited.

Of course we could follow the logic espoused by you and others on here and see where it gets us - a massive hit for the "ordinary person" and the 1% would still be lauding it, though maybe not in the UK, after all they have options all over the world.