I wasn't in favour of the Argentinians winning the Falklands War Derek. I believe in self determination and it's pretty clear that the Falklands "self" wanted to remain part of the British Empire. <BR> <BR>But really, there's no more way that the Falklands are "ours" than that elephants fly. <BR> <BR>And we broke the rules of engagement when sinking the Belgrano and the only reason she did it was to win the next election. <BR> <BR>Which nation did we restore pride in? I personally was proud of the sailors and soldiers and ashamed of the political decisions which made them heroes. <BR> <BR>Messrs Wilson and Heath avoided conflict; they did not create it for political gain. And if you doubt that the conflict was created by Britain, read some history. <BR> <BR>The only honourable man amongst the politicians was Peter Carrington.

Sorry. <BR> <BR>I just broke one of my rules for this place. I don't usually cant here (at least I hope I don't)but something just got too far under my skin

There are several postings here by people that seem to think that the 'British Empire' still exists (yes Derek thats you too!) Face fact people- IT DOES NOT - the sooner these people accept this - the sooner we will all be able to celebrate our British culture within the realms of a merged Europe. Whats so wrong with that?

Dear Sheila, Britain did not initiate the Falklands conflict-they successfully ended it. I think it is conspiratorial rubbish to think Mrs. Thatcher pulled strings to have the Argentines invade the Falklands so that she might gain electoral advantage for re-taking it--that is the stuff of Hollywood thrillers. A conspiracy would have almost had to include Lord Carrington, a man who was in conflict with Mrs. Thatcher on many issues due to their being on opposite ends of the same party. I agree with your concept of self-determination whether you are a small island like the Falklands, a cultural nation like Quebec or, as in 1860s America, a region like Dixie. I do not question your patriotism, Sheila, though I do find it odd that some in Britain seemed to favor a right-wing military junta over a constitutional monarchy in the Falklands War. Lastly, I've enjoyed your spunk and strong views. You would be wrong to stiffle your brain. Have a good weekend.

1. Sara, You are correct, the British empire no longer exists. It was build out of trade by mostly smugglers while the kings and queens partied. After they took an interest they systematically destroyed it. <BR>2. Ms Thatcher did indeed inherit a ruined England. The problem is that one leader can just about ruin a country (look at Jimmy Carter) in a very short time. It takes much longer to restore it and Ms. Thatcher got the ball rolling. The Soviets only ended the cold war when they could not respond to Reagon. They had already ciphered all of the wealth from Central and Eastern Europe where they became as poor as the rest of the Soviet block. <BR>3. Unfortunately socialism/communism will continue to exist as long as people want something for nothing or want other people to pay their bills. <BR>This is unfortunate as if socialism exists over the long run, civilization will not. <BR>Regards <BR> <BR>

The answer is quite simple, really. <BR>The British tribe will shout and rant about how they are against the Euro for as long as the Euro is only real "on paper". As soon as the currency becomes a reality, the Pound is going to get its **s kicked, and then you'll see the turnaround of the century. I actually look forward to seeing the Tory ministers explain why it it that the UK "really can't do without the €"...

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, Dirk (tho' I might somehwat with your characterisation:-)) <BR> <BR>But which Tory ministers would that be? <BR> <BR>We haven't had any since 1997 and hoefully won't for a considerable number of years to come

You do have "shadow" ministers Sheila. <BR>It's another rather unique British Institution (and I do not mean that pejoratively...)

I wonder if this would be such an emotive subject if Sterling were to be replaced with credits or units rather than the Euro? I’m sure that many of my friends and relatives envisage some sort of invasion force!

Dirk, when you say that Britain has 'shadow' ministers and then say that this in a uniquely British Institution I must correct you. It is a part of the Westminster System of government and so we have them in each of our governments in Australia and I believe, but will stand corrected on this, in other countries of the British Commonwealth ( the successor to the British Empire) such as New Zealand and Canada which also follow the Westminster System. Others members of the Commonwealth do not. Some have modified the system to suit themselves which is why I am not prepared to state categorically which other countries may or may not have 'shadow' ministries but they are certainly not unique to Britain. <BR>Question: As each country will be issuing the Euro with one side common and one side determined by their own country, I believe, will they really be able to be used all over Europe or will they become national currencies as other countries refuse to accept the notes, coins from other places?

<BR>Odie <BR>All euro notes and coins issued by participating nations will be fully useable in all other coutries of the Euro zone. So, from next year, when you get change in Paris, say, it may contain notes and coins issued by France, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Spain etc. as they are all of uniform size, colour etc.

Just read an interview with some people working in the tourist industry in Switzerland. <BR>Places (hotels, restaurants, shops) close to the border to EU countries (Germany, France, Italy) will most likely accept the Euro as well, but will give the change in Swiss Francs.

The bills do not have a national side only the coins. They will be Legal Tender in all nations that are on the Euro.

Derek - firstly, yes of course they teach history in British schools. Margaret Thatcher, however, wasn't history when I was at school - she was current affairs. Also, there is so much history to get through in Britain that they didn't manage to get through all of it (sorry, but I couldn't resist that little dig). <BR> <BR>I did, however, learn about this period while I was at university, as part of my European studies course. The 70s was a mess economically speaking across Europe and many other parts of the world, not just in the UK. I agree, Margaret Thatcher did inherit a mess, as have many other governments before and since. While the problems of the early 80s can not be entirely attributed to the Conservatives (if we're going down that road, can any economic problems be entirely attributable to any individual government?), the state of the economy in the late 80s and early 90s can hardly be attributed to what Thatcher inherited - since she had been in power for a decade by this point (and yes, I know Major was in power for the latter part of this period - but then he'd inherited a mess, hadn't he?). <BR> <BR>Margaret Thatcher jumped at the chance to have a go at Argentina over the Falklands - the timing was perfect from her point of view, just when she was at a low point in her popularity. I'm sure that's not the only reason she went into the conflict as she did, but I am quite certain that someone as politically canny as she undoubtedly was made every effort to milk it for all it was worth. <BR> <BR>The way Britain behaved, in particular with the sinking of the Belgrano, did not restore pride in the country among many of us. In fact, a large proportion of the population were ashamed to be British after that event.

Sorry to bring this one back.
But I wonder if anyone who commented on this subject since August 01, has changed their opinion over the last 2.5 years or so.
(I am researching for an assignment)

Cheers

Muck

;-)

My new answer to the question is:
When Hell freezes over.

When will the US adopt the Euro?

As an American, I would like to ask if the Euro is going to be in the form of a coin or thin paper? I have always loved the weight and ease of a pound coin. Then we dumb Americans came out with a cheap. flimsy coin like the Anthony dollar for the arcade games industry. Then, since all those coins are in a vast warehouse unused,, we decided to try it all again so we have the Sasageweha (sp?) dollar coin! Have yet to see them at any store or place of business! Go figure!!

I found the Sacajaweah (yea, that spellings wrong too, I'm sure) dollars. Recently I stopped at the local post office to get a single stamp -- then realized the smallest I had was a $20 bill, which I put in the machine. In addition to the small coins, I got back 9 of those silly dollar coins to put in my pocket. I limped home. I guess they've pawned them all off on the post offices to try to disperse them.

Ooops, sorry for the error. No I wasn't scammed by the machine -- I meant I got back 19 of those silly coins.

Patrick..

Why do you call the dollar coin silly? Study after study has shown the American treasury could save millions by doing what every other country has done i.e. doing away with a bank note worth as little (sorry folks but it's true) as a dollar. Britain no longer has a &pound;1 bank note, the smallest paper money is &pound;5. Euroland never had a &euro;1 bank note; the smallest paper money is worth &euro;5; Canada no longer has a $1 or $2 bank note, they have the looney and the twoney.

I do agree that I do like the &pound;1 coin; it is nice and thick. My colour vision is not as good as it once was and I still have some problems distinguishing &euro;.50 coins from &euro;1 coins; I do wish the &euro;1 coin was domewhat thicker, I really can't feel much of a difference by feel as I can with English coins (certainly you know you are holding a 50p coin by its very shape).

Personally, and I am not a Brit so it's based on talking to people who may not represent the majority, my friends in Britain tell me they are utterly opposed to the Euro as they can't picture having to submit to German and French theories on interest rates and taxation; an independence they will be forced to give up if Britain adopts the Euro. Also, I don't think they would know what to do if they didn't have the picture of the Queen on their money....

Mucky,according to Gordon Brown,the earliest date for a referendum on the UK joining the Euro would be 2005.But this is just talk to keep the boys in &quot;The City&quot; happy. Realistically the time frame is more like 2006-08.

Why do I call the $1 coin silly? You try putting 19 of them in your pocket and then walking a few blocks. Maybe it's different if you carry a purse. I don't. By the way, I think the silliest thing the &quot;euro people&quot; did was to have both a 1 cent and a 2 cent coin. I think what we should really give up in the US is the penny, and the euro and the dollar should have started with a 5 cent coin in my opinion.

It's not the coin that's silly, it's the way the machine made change.

You would probably feel somewhat the same way if you had gone to the clerk, spent 37 cents for a stamp and been given 19 $1 banknotes.

The Europeans should really have adopted the US way of coinage. Just 4 coins. I found it totally ridiculous to find 8 different types there: 1, 2, 5 cents; 10, 20, 50 cents, and then 1 &amp; 2 euro. Or at least do what the Canadians do. Still only just 6 types. [Only thing that can be confusing with US/Canadian coins is that the nickel is larger than the dime.]

BTW, some places are actually moving back from coins to paper money, like the Hong Kong $10. The coins (which look like a 1 euro, with its two metal construction) are often counterfeited. Merchants in neighboring Macau has stopped accepting those coins, and local legislators are thinking about phasing them out, in favor of the new HK$10 note.

Sterling comes in the same exact denominations as do Euro coins (1p, 2p, 5p, 10p, 20p, 50p, &pound;1, &pound;2/ I could live with this (actually who am I to say I could live with this!) and I don't know if it's just me with my problems with colour perception but I still think both the &euro;1 and &euro;2 are not thick enough to be more easily recognizable by feel from coins of lower denominations....the UK solved the problem by making the 20p coin not quite round (as I remember) and I know the 50p coin is not round.

Incidentally, given the existance of modern copiers, isn't it easier to counterfeit bank notes than it is to counterfeit coins? Just asking.

If the US called in all of the current money and reissued new currency and coins at the rate of 1 for 10 it would,

Make the dollar worth something closer to a dollar,

Make pennies worthwhile

Flush out all of the hidden ill gotten gains.

People would stop complaining that the euro was up to $1.22. It would be only 12 cents.

Author: xyz123
Date: 03/22/2004, 02:35 am
Message: It's not the coin that's silly, it's the way the machine made change.

You would probably feel somewhat the same way if you had gone to the clerk, spent 37 cents for a stamp and been given 19 $1 banknotes.
* * * * *

No, xyz. I wouldn't feel at all the same way. I don't carry a purse. I can easily tuck 19 $1 notes into my wallet and know I can spend them easily in the next few days. But do you have any idea what it's like to drop 19 $1 coins into your pocket? It is incredibly heavy. I'm not kidding when I said I walked home with a limp!

Dear Mucky.

My answer is still the same:)

Sheila:

Back in 2001 - when it was still possible to argue that the Euro might, one day, benefit the unfortunate Continentals who were lumbered with the insanity - your answer was &quot;the sooner the better&quot;

Three years on, as the Eurozone remains stuck in the mire, and as the UK is in its twelfth successive year of continuous economic growth (a record matched only by Australia, which has also avoided sharing a currency with its neighbours), the question has to be: &quot;Better for whom?&quot;

Obviously not for Brits. Obviously not for the people in the Eurozone (for whom the UK is practically the only place to which their exports are growing). Certainly not for the people of the 10 new EU accession countries, for whom only the UK and Ireland are now open as potential sources of employment.

Presumably, you mean &quot;better for Americans and Japanese&quot;. Because I can think of no-one else who could possibly benefit from our joining the world's most successful economy-destroying initiative.

I was vehemently against it then, and if anything my attitude has hardened.

In common with most of my fellow Brits I have now seen the upside of the euro, on holidays in Europe it certainly is a convenience crossing borders.

Also the currency is proving rather more robust that I initially thought. (Although a lot of this is to do with the Dollar being beaten like a ginger step-child on the money markets)

Having said that....

I still don't want any part of it.

There are a variety of reasons for this. All of my original objections around sovereignty and political union still stand, and there is now an emotional element that didn't exist before.

That is that this country really isn't all that &quot;European&quot;, as demonstrated over the Iraq war and subsequent events, culminating in the recent Spanish Elections.

There is an obvious split between ourselves and the French-German axis around an awful lot of our worldview. The Spanish also appear to share this view.

Until this rift is healed I do not think we can look at closer political and economic union.

Also at a purely practical level, the introduction of the Euro doesn't seem to have disadvantaged us in any meaningful way.

Tony Blair also seems to have come to realise that there is no political advantage to be gained from entering the Euro, in fact the opposite does seem to be true.

I'd be suprised if it was an issue in the next election.

Mine's still the same - I don't see why we shouldn't join. I think the romantic notion of sovereignty and the currency is simply rubbish - Scotland hasn't lost its own identity just because it has shared currency with England for the last 300 years or so. What I think is interesting is the distinct possibility that in a referendum Scotland and Northern Ireland might vote for the Euro - and convincingly so - and England and Wales vote against so the UK doesn't go in. That's more likely in my opinion to provoke a rise in nationalism than anything else.

Having considered the overall Euro situation I think that if there was a referendum tomorrow,UK people generally would vote NO by a large majority.
However the reasons for saying No would be mainly because they are uninformed of the economic consequences of EMU entry.

The arguement of sovereignty doesn't really hold, we are not going to lose our sovereign are we?

The public are not informed enough to make an economic decision like this.

Banks on the other hand are very well informed, they know for example that the interest rates in Euroland are 2% less than they are here in UK what will that do to the economy....not to mention their profits.

The UK Government would lose control of interest rates to the European National Bank, this could be catastrophic for the country.
Adjusting interest rates up or down may work very well to cool the economy in one country but it could have the opposite effect on another so is it good to link economies together in this way.....certainly not.

In my opinion; humble though it may be, we should never ever join the Euro, we should never ever have joined the EU.

My opinions here are purely economic and emotions should not enter the arguement, but they surely will.

So when the Government (for Political reasons) decide to join, there will be a sudden upturn in information coming out they will give it the hard sell, only when the UK is converted will there be a referendum.

So thank you all for helping to ressurect this old thread.
It has cofirmed I think; what we all already know.
Muck
Oh just for the record as this is a travel forum after all, we should never have built a tunnel to France, being an island has its distinct advantages.

;-)

Dear Flanner;

growth rates over the last few years are .3%, 2/3% and 2.4% over the last 3 years and in Europe 1.4%, .8% and 1.8%. The US has traditionally had a greater growth than Europe and nothing has really changed that, notwithstanding Lisbon. The UK is 1.6%, 2% and 2.6%.

It's non-sense to suggest the Euro destroys economies. And the employment thing is short term.

I do, on the other hand, tend to agree with david's analysis, if not his conclusions.

Lower interest rates tends to stimulate the economy; even that of the banks.

The ECB doesn't seem to have done a bad job so far. Why would it be better or worse than the Bank of England?

&gt;&gt;The ECB doesn't seem to have done a bad job so far. Why would it be better or worse than the Bank of England?&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Becase, like the American Revolution, it's a bit early to tell if it's working yet.

Once it's got a few decades of stable management under it's belt, and ridden out a few crises, then comparisons can be made.

Until then it's a step in the dark, a step that doesn't really need taking.

Not before 2008. The main anti-euro campaign group has just mothballed itself.