It's not that simple. Or rather, it's easier said than done. It is not the imposition of "fiscal rules" that is the problem here. There are two main problems. The first is the problem of the *ankers and the fact that any serious action to deal with their immoral activities will disproportionately damage the UK economy because, sadly, we provide a home for more of the bastards than the rest of Europe does. Personally I'd impose the rules on them anyway, regardless the national interest issue. We just have to accept we are more infested than most other nations. But there is a more serious problem and that is that a full fiscal union of the eurozone countries is likely to negatively impact non-euro EU countries in unpredicatable ways. Put simply: this wasn't what we signed up to, and that applies doubly to the British people because they haven't had a vote on it for so long.the_lyniezian wrote:I don't really know everything about the issue or understand it fully, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I gather, it would seem the problem is trying to impose these fiscal ruls upon the whole EU and not just the Eurozone. If you have a single currency, then of course you need a shared control system- otherwise one country's economy affects the value of the whole currency and all that use it. The same effect does not apply to those who do not use that currency, except indirectly.
So if you want a unanimous treaty, then don't let it affect the non-Eurozone countries, simple as that.
I personally am now tending towards the idea that we would be better off
outside the EU altogether. I believe the balance has shifted, and that it is now better to be in a smaller vessel than onboard a very large but sinking ship.
Not anymore they don't.Sadly they're so committed to the "ever-closer union" ideal that they don't admit that countries "out" of the Euro are any more than "not yet in"-
totally out of order there LB3