Greek elections - beginning of the end for the EU?

[JBR]

What about the north of England being subsidised by the south, should they be thrown out?

Yes please!

Btw, how do you pro-EU people feel about this?

http://jillseymourukip.org/eu-pay-per-mile-road-plans-are-outrageous/

 

[Norcon]

I see no reason why the other countries should continue shovelling in their hard-earned money to prop up a corrupt and spendthrift little nation.

It will be very bad for the Greeks when they leave the Euro, but if they can't run their own economy, they shouldn't be allowed to drag down the other nations.

The countries who have put their hands deepest into their pockets are actually resented by many of the Greeks, who see it as a slur on their national pride. If they aren't going to pay back the loans or fulfil their promises, they obviously can't expect more money to be showered on them.

What about all the other countries in the EU who can't balance their books should they be kicked out as well.

It's Germany that should be kicked out.

 

[jeds]

The situation in Greece is desperate on a scale we can't begin to understand here. Yes they bring a lot of it on themselves but it's basic common sense that kicking somebody on the ground for so long with no sign of letting up doesn't work. Something had to give.

 

[JBR]

Yes, I suppose we could be really altruistic and extend the boundaries a bit.

We could invite in Ethiopia, Uganda and Nigeria. I'm sure the Brussels bureaucrats would relish even more power.

 

[Brigadier]

What about the north of England being subsidised by the south, should they be thrown out?

That's just being silly.

 

[JohnD]

Yes, I suppose we could be really altruistic and extend the boundaries a bit.

We could invite in Ethiopia, Uganda and Nigeria. I'm sure the Brussels bureaucrats would relish even more power.

that's just being silly

 

[JohnD]

It's Germany that should be kicked out.

That's just being silly

 

[JBR]

My earlier question seems to have escaped people's notice:

Btw, how do you pro-EU people feel about this?

http://jillseymourukip.org/eu-pay-per-mile-road-plans-are-outrageous/

Or perhaps they just think it's a good idea.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Btw, how do you pro-EU people feel about this?

Well, I think it a ridiculous concept but I suspect ulterior motives, more driven (sorry) by the desire to know where we go rather than just how far, and it is an example of bureaucrats doing things just because they can.

We are already charged per mile of driving by the extortionate tax/duty on fuel.

 

[AronSearle]

What about the north of England being subsidised by the south, should they be thrown out?

That's just being silly.

Nope, it is the price of a currency union. The stronger parts have to support the weaker parts.

Plenty of eastern european countries get bungs of money as well, they don't spend it as haphazardly as the greeks and so this generates less tension, but the basic 'problem' remains the same.

Having to subsidise parts of a currency union is not a bug, but a feature. It is a reason to think about joining it in the first place, but not a reason to chuck someone out.

 

[jeds]

My earlier question seems to have escaped people's notice:

Btw, how do you pro-EU people feel about this?

http://jillseymourukip.org/eu-pay-per-mile-road-plans-are-outrageous/

Or perhaps they just think it's a good idea.

Road pricing could have merits if done properly, although I suspect the main point is really the bit about the dosh going to Brussels. Where's the evidence for that though? We don't pay road tax to Brussels, why would we pay the proceeds of road pricing.

BTW, I am definitely NOT pro-EU!

 

[Brigadier]

What about the north of England being subsidised by the south, should they be thrown out?

That's just being silly.

Nope, it is the price of a currency union. The stronger parts have to support the weaker parts.

Plenty of eastern european countries get bungs of money as well, they don't spend it as haphazardly as the greeks and so this generates less tension, but the basic 'problem' remains the same.

Having to subsidise parts of a currency union is not a bug, but a feature. It is a reason to think about joining it in the first place, but not a reason to chuck someone out.

That's nations, not parts of nations (metaphor and literal do not necessarily come across well, in the written word).
Of course a currency union is a collective of stronger and weaker.

 

[Brigadier]

My earlier question seems to have escaped people's notice:

Btw, how do you pro-EU people feel about this?

http://jillseymourukip.org/eu-pay-per-mile-road-plans-are-outrageous/

Or perhaps they just think it's a good idea.

Road pricing could have merits if done properly, although I suspect the main point is really the bit about the dosh going to Brussels. Where's the evidence for that though? We don't pay road tax to Brussels, why would we pay the proceeds of road pricing.

BTW, I am definitely NOT pro-EU!

Just seems an overly-complicated (i.e. expensive) way of doing what already happens anyway.

The more we use a road, the more we pay for the privilege, IN FUEL USE.
The busier the road we use, the more we pay to use it, IN REDUCED FUEL ECONOMY.

Most people consciously choose to sit in gridlock, because it is preferable to taking the alternative route (otherwise, they'd be taking it).

Isn't that the point of road pricing? To disincentivise the motorist from using the busiest stretches of road, at the busiest times?

 

[AronSearle]

What about the north of England being subsidised by the south, should they be thrown out?

That's just being silly.

Nope, it is the price of a currency union. The stronger parts have to support the weaker parts.

Plenty of eastern european countries get bungs of money as well, they don't spend it as haphazardly as the greeks and so this generates less tension, but the basic 'problem' remains the same.

Having to subsidise parts of a currency union is not a bug, but a feature. It is a reason to think about joining it in the first place, but not a reason to chuck someone out.

That's nations, not parts of nations (metaphor and literal do not necessarily come across well, in the written word).
Of course a currency union is a collective of stronger and weaker.

If you have a currency union, what difference does it make if it is nations or parts of nations?

You have weaker parts, and those will need to be subsidies by the richer parts, or they will be absolutly rodgered.

 

[Brigadier]

I thought we were discussing the EU, which is a group of nations, not villages (or areas of countries, or families, or collectives of people who own the same type of car.......)[/u]