Discussion > EU must be joking
Sandy S, I am glad you have had time to spend with your grandchildren. We are privileged to care for ours 2 or 3 days a week plus associated school runs. Monetarily impossible for their mother to be at home to bring up her children so we share the task. Willingly, because we are able, a situation that is becoming rarer.
Concerning the £350 Million a week - the number really is of no concern, either being gross or net. What is of concern is who is responsible for its use.
Concerning immigration - again, it really is of no concern, either being gross or net. What is of concern is who is responsible for control. The 'deal' with Turkey acknowledges control is fundamental.
For the economy - growth, nobody knows, 3 months, 3 years, 10 years, in or out nobody knows! What is of concern is who is responsible for developing a culture that has the best environment to ensure growth. Protectionism is not a conducive environment.
For the current housing problem - there will always be a housing problem, it is inherent in a society wishing to improve the well being of its citizens. One thing for sure, it is easier to cater for folks if you know who is coming! Especially in a highly populated product of the industrial revolution.
Re the Euro - I have not found anybody, in, out, financial, economic even governmental or for that matter intergovernmental that claims the UK would have benefited materially had they chosen to join the Euro.
PS
" Growth will return to the EU despite politicians' best efforts. ."
Excellent news, and it poses a few questions:-
a What is the anticipated growth in the EU economy for the next 3 years?
b What is the anticipated growth in the EU economy for the following 3 years?
c What is the anticipated growth in the EU economy for the next 10 years?
and
a What is the anticipated growth in the EU economy for the first 3 years after Brexit?
b What is the anticipated growth in the EU economy for the next 3 years after Brexit?
c What is the anticipated growth in the EU economy for the 10 years after Brexit?
TIA
PPS, nice to have you back, trust you enjoyed being back in the UK, but as with everybody it must be good to now be back home?
Green Sand
SandyS on Jun 7, 2016 at 8:50 PM
We are not having a general election, so your questions cannot be answered until a government is formed, after the referendum, and only if we vote to leave. If we vote to leave, we will need to give two years notice of any change, so there will not be any changes for at least two years, longer if we delay giving notice. A delay would allow the dust to settle, give us extra time to decide on the approach, get experts in to help and allow other countries to reflect before responding to our decision. This strategy is just normal, accepted practice, something that is well known, but not by Cameron, who may try to wreck our future by giving notice immediately, without any pre-planning, in a similar manner to his 'renegotiations'. What a guy!
On current evidence, our Civil Service are unable to think outside the box while still tethered to Brussels, so give it time: even the BBC will have a glimmer of independent thinking, for some of the time, hopefully, after a period of reflection.
The whole point of leaving is that, at any time, the current British government is responsible for governing the country. It is what we used to have. Designing the process of leaving is part of that responsibility. All the ballot paper asks is whether you wish to remain or leave the EU.
If we leave, we will be able to think and organise for ourselves, like we used to do, electing MPs to make our law. If we don't like what OUR government has done, we can throw them out and get another lot in, or even become an MP. It is called Democracy!
I was hoping to be enlightened by various news media ...
The Government policy is to let the people decide. That should have led to them using the state's resources to present the case for each side, even handedly and allowing public discussion by all the players.
It hasn't happened. Cameron put out a very misleading leaflet, as explained in Hannan's recent book, Why Vote Leave. He stopped his own ministers from engaging for some time. He lined up his international cronies to backup his agenda, even those who should be independently minded like the Governor of the Bank of England. He decided that government policy was to let the people decide, but then he has corrupted the process.
The Leave side didn't even have a chosen, official organisation until very late in the day and they haven't had any state resource to aid their case while Cameron has used it extensively. That was official (Remain) government policy, which Cameron or Osborne controlled.
To minimise disruption, the process to leave may take several stages, as we are currently tied up with over 40 years of EU rules accumulated. It needs a government to negotiate this, but with the backing of the public, they will be in a very strong position against the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and the twenty seven voices of the member states.
There have been headlines tonight raising the question of the ability of a 'Remaining' Britain to resist the pressures to join the Euro, Schengen etc, and the durability of our vetos.
We were tricked into the Working Time Directive, and who can predict that it won't happen again? The Euro-bailouts were not just not legal, they were explicitly stated in a treaty to be illegal, yet they went ahead. If a treaty can be ignored, Cameron's non-treaty 'renegotiation' changes are worthless!
It does seem illogical to be wanting to remain in an 'Ever Closer Union Club' yet not joining in everything. To be dragged into the Euro, the Schengen Area, the Euro Coastguard and the Euro Army, as we will certainly be, isn't really the best strategy. EU funds will be used to rescue the Eurozone, the Eurozone unemployed will swamp our labour market, the events of the last few years will only continue. The Continent have no reason to improve anything while we donate our resources to them.
How much better to influence the group than be a team player: join the Euro, join the Schengen area, have Brussels in overall charge of your welfare, taxes and pensions (yes, pensions!) is surely the way to go, otherwise all the other nations will ignore our valid suggestions like they have done, ever since we started offering suggestions, a year after we joined - to no effect!
But if you don't want Ever Closer Union, don't vote for it.
"... there's a huge reserve of bi-lingual citizens growing up in he UK"
If we leave, the bi-lingual citizens will still be able to use their skills, and they will be able to trade with more than 150 countries where a trade agreement with Britain is possible. And Europe will still be there, even if the EU has disintegrated!
"Not an argument for joining the Euro"
No, it is not. I am sure the Greeks wish they still had their drachma instead of their financial crisis and youth unemployment!
A successful country, like a successful individual, needs to seek new opportunities, especially if the current situation is awful. Both are able to start the journey knowing that more information can be gathered, assimilated and acted upon until there is improvement. In many cases, especially when there are many who do not have your well-being as a priority, waiting for certainty will be a long wait.
As Kate Hoey has said, "The price of true freedom is uncertainty, the price of certainty is a form of servitude, and we need to set our country free from that future servitude."
Robert Christopher
Robert that's an excellent post. Also like the quote from Kate Hoey which I hadn't seen.
mike fowle
mike fowle on Jun 8, 2016 at 8:10 AM
Probably because it was said, rather than written in an article: I transcribed it from this, @26:00, though you may want to hear what went before it for context:
Leave wins the Spectator Brexit debate at the London Palladium
with Nigel Farage @ 9:10, Kate Hoey @ 20:00 and Dan Hannan @ 31:10.
Robert Christopher
Green Sand,
Yes grandchildren are a great joy. It's nice to be home again, just got to hone our belote skills for the next round of concours.
Thanks for taking the time to answer, but it doesn't actually move me any further forward. Basically what you are saying is vote for Brexit because it is good, then vote in a general election to decide just how great it will be.
From what I can tell the project economic growth for EU countries are similar to the UK should it remain a member. Possibly Sweden and Spain showing better rates.
Knowing how the UK and the Euro itself would have benefited had the UK joined is impossible to know. We can't go back in time and try it again so I don't speculate.
With your answers in particular Immigration, £350 million and housing you have effectively destroyed some of the platforms on which the Brexit campaign is built. Net immigration could remain in the hundreds of thousands, housing will remain an issue (I agree with what you say but politicians won't say it), and the £350 million is a red herring, a tax and spend government could use it and more for marginal benefits and a business oriented government could use the whole lot to reduce business taxes and there's no way of knowing what will happen..
SandyS
Robert Christopher,
Your answers don't inspire confidence as they don't address the questions of a post Brexit Britain. I've heard them but the question is OK but what are you offering as an alternative, and how are you going to address the issues which may result. Briefly things like a split of the Tory Party followed by a general election. As you correctly say there is no Leave party and certainly no manifesto for post Brexit. There is a serious difference between this referendum and the Scottish independenc one in that both sides, mainly the SNP versus the rest, put forward their plans and manifestos. The Unionists can be held to account when they don't produce the results promised. For this only the pro-EU side can be held to account after the referendum as they have said what the benefits are and what the costs both financial and other will be.
Personally I don't see the working time directive as all bad, I guess workers in China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh would love a greatly watered down version as a step forward in working conditions.
Greece has a long and distinguished history of financial crises, defaulting in 1823, 1843,1860 and as a result Greece has spent 90 years of nearly years as a country in default or debt restructuring,
We have to hope none of the EU citizens decide to go somewhere where they will be more welcome, thereby reducing the points required for entry to the UK to zero.
SandyS
A lot of the arguments from the Remain side about a post Brexit UK have been based on pre EU conditions, which wasn’t that long out of rationing or WW2 for that matter. It wasn’t EU membership that turned our economy around, it was adopting best business practice from Japan, US and Germany. Economies the World over have boomed, not because they’re part of a restrictive trade club but because they worked hard and were prepared to do business. The future is dependent on that too. What is damaging the EU is ever growing rules that stunt flexibility. The EU is effectively one great big union drunk on power. Sure, it will make the workers temporarily happy but like heavily unionised UK in the 70s, eventually nobody wants the over priced stuff you’re flogging. Worker conditions haven't improved because we're part of the EU, they've improved because we've grown wealthy and grown up.
The biggest worry is that the EU will go into a strop post Brexit and not co-operate with us. Except the big payers and players in the EU need us to trade with as much as we need them. The EU will have a vast hole in its fortunes and they couldn’t survive a trade war with the UK as well. It will be in their interest to get Brexit off the news as fast as possible and the best way to do that is to make a quick deal with us. They can’t afford to play hardball and it would be important post Brexit to have a negotiating team the doesn’t include pathetic roll over Remainers. They’ve done a Ratner on the UK and we'd need people who believe in the UK to take us forward.
You can't put a figure on any of it, any more than we could have predicted the last 40 years.
TinyCO2
Sandy S
""....but it doesn't actually move me any further forward...."
Sorry Sandy, but it wasn't my intention to try and move you forward. Time has taught me that one of life's most ineffectual activities is to try and change the other person. I just make my view available and folks make of it what they will.
What I was trying to do was explain what I see as the fundamental issue. It is simply whether or not the UK governs itself. It has nothing to do with numbers. It is solely an issue of democracy. No one, and especially not our elected, have the right to divest the government of the UK to another authority.
In fact you nailed it
".....a tax and spend government could use it and more for marginal benefits and a business oriented government could use the whole lot to reduce business taxes..."
Precisely! It is the right of the UK electorate to decide the 'hue' of their governments. To weigh circumstances local, national and international and vote accordingly. An option that could not exist in an ever closer Union of European States.
How good our elected governments turn out to be is another issue. But the electorate must have the ability via the ballot box to install/remove their law makers. If you allow this ability to be denied then you no longer live in a democracy and that is the overriding concern.
Green Sand
Green Sand
Thanks, I agree with what you say, being able to agree to differ is a good thing. I happen to like a lot about the EU, including the contribution of migrants to the country they choose to live in. Although as with all things there are exceptions which prove the rule. British migrants in the Spanish Costas being a prime example, Costa Brighton. I like being able to travel round Europe just as I can travel round the countries in the UK, freely and without having to change money into different currencies.
My questions were a method of confirming that things appear to be being done the wrong way round in the UK, leave then work out what do when we have. This is in stark contrast to the Scottish referendum where both sides put forward manifestos and they were what was voted on. This time it is all on emotion in its broadest sense. I'm not sure that nationalism is a good thing, I speak as someone who thinks small nations should be free to split from their larger partner/owner and join unions like the EU if they so wish; I speak as the native of a country which voluntarily surrendered its independence in 1707.
I think that Brexit may well be a case of be careful what you wish for.
SandyS
SandyS on Jun 8, 2016 at 1:08 PM
Your answers don't inspire confidence ...
My answers describe what will happen next. Just like starting a new job, there are many unknowns but, if everyone had the attitude of wanting every fact before they did anything, little would happen: people wouldn't change their jobs, products wouldn't get developed and new companies would never be started. As adults, people learn to take risks rather than chances by weighing up the evidence available, and there is plenty around.
I posted earlier that Cameron has screwed it, and he has managed it with the help of the best minds in the Civil Service too! He has not presented information in a timely manner, he has hindered the Brexit supporters and he has given very misleading information. Just read the posts on this thread for examples. The Brexiters have, by contrast, given plenty of credible information: just follow John Redwood, Dan Hannan and others. Where you are asking them to forecast events, they give credible views and on numerous times the Farage Forecast has been proved correct, certainly much nearer the mark than the official estimates.
Briefly things like a split of the Tory Party ...
Why are you worried about a Tory Party split? They are not a permanent part of the British Constitution.
The Unionists can be held to account when they don't produce the results promised.
You mean they can be thrown out of office. That is all we can do to them! What else do you want to happen?
The British government at the time that Brexit is negotiated (properly :) ) will also be held to account for their actions, which does not happen now as there is always a directive or regulation from the EU that muddies the waters.
... only the pro-EU side can be held to account after the referendum ...
I don't think you realise that, if we vote Remain, all accountability will end up in Brussels, and they won't give a damn about us in Britain, and our wealth will continue to drain into the debt hole that is the Eurozone. It is self-destructing as I type!
Personally I don't see the working time directive as all bad ...
Firstly, it was implemented poorly, so it was VERY costly; the NHS was a victim. And secondly, my point was that it was implemented as H&S legislation, because Brussels failed to get it passed as employment law. This shows that Brussels will persevere until they win, no matter what. They are planning to take over every area, as they think they are a country after all. It is an example of the complete disregard of British interests that is frightening. We have had a very different History and government infrastructure to most of the continental countries, so we are invariable outvoted and the EU legislation is a square peg in a round hole.
For example, the EU Port legislation that has been forced through against the wishes of British management, unions and customers, and all the British MEPs! It is tailored to the Continentals' situation, very large, state owned inland ports that are effectively monopolies covering a large hinterland. The British ports are, meanwhile, privately owned, with no connection to any political organisation, small, usually coastal ports that often have only one supplier within range for any product.
The waste and dysfunctionality that will occur in British trade will be immense, but the Continentals will think that a positive side effect, or they won't notice at all!
Greece has a long and distinguished history of financial crises ...
True, but they could devalue their currency, and recover. But not in the EU. Today, their future looks very bleak. Even if they were generously given another loan, the political structures are not there to help them recover. This is what the EU means to any failing country!
We have to hope ...
This sounds like not bothering to analyse the situation. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. The Brexiters realise that by acting professionally, creating an adaptable plan, having accountability, and allowing their people people to trade across the world, success isn't as difficult that the EU makes it out to be.
That is why Britain has performed better than the rest of the EU.
SandyS on Jun 8, 2016 at 6:22 PM
This is in stark contrast to the Scottish referendum where both sides put forward manifestos ...
While they did do that, the SNP forgot to state which currency they planned to use and hoped they could join the EU. Wanting to be an independent country, and then wanting to join the EU and the Euro, isn't logical. And they never addressed the risks involved for the not unlikely event of a falling oil price on world markets.
Fortunately, Britain still has most of what is needed to be a sovereign country again, including a currency.
All we need is a Prime Minister who thinks that we are good enough.
Robert Christopher
Robert Christopher
You mean, it could be a win-win situation!
Robert Christopher
Sandy S, Good chat, lots to think about:-
" I like being able to travel round Europe just as I can travel round the countries in the UK, freely and without having to change money into different currencies. "
So do I, but in the context of this issue it is a non-issue, the whole world handles exchange.
" My questions were a method of confirming that things appear to be being done the wrong way round in the UK, leave then work out what do when we have. "
But Sandy, in this case it can be no other way. The government, who should be working on and explaining the potential of both outcomes is actually campaigning to not be the "government" responsible for the outcome? Irrespective of the outcome!
" I'm not sure that nationalism is a good thing,.. ."
I agree but sometimes it is easy to conflate national pride with nationalism. Democracy has the ability to both promote national pride whilst at the same time, via the ballot box, deflate nationalism.
" I think that Brexit may well be a case of be careful what you wish for. ."
Many have lived and died wishing for democracy. It is your only true right, it is the basis of society, it should e treasured and never surrendered.
My stance is on the basic principle of the ballot box. Retain that principle and your politicos and officers have the ability to resolve the issues of 'numbers'. Surrender it and somebody else will instruct you on what your 'numbers' will be. Many appear resolved to accept that such decisions should be devolved. I fear they have not studied the societal development of mankind, maybe they are trying to run before they can think?
Thanks for your input, democracy was developed to facilitate the non-conflict handling of differing views. Long may it remain the basis of society. Without it, or with it watered down I am fearful.
PS one of the things we have in common - grandchildren! Mine are not old enough to vote, so I have a decision to make, should I, by my vote, possibly deprive them of all or part of the democracy I have been privileged to have experienced? I think you will know the answer.
Green Sand
Is this what pushed the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice into the Brexit camp:
What has emerged is an EU supreme court that knows no restraint and has been captured by judicial activists - much like the US Supreme Court in the 1970s, but without two centuries of authority and a ratified constitution to back it up.
This is what the Brexit referendum ought to be about, for this thrusting ECJ is in elemental conflict with the supremacy of Parliament. The two cannot co-exist. One or the other must give.
Britain's defiant judges fight back against Europe's imperial court
Robert Christopher
I have to say I'm pleased to see Tony Blair and John Major on the same platform. One guy who screwed Edwina Curry and the other screwed everyone else.
TinyCO2
Tiny CO2'
Will you stop that, every time I think of Major and the egg woman in bed together I need mind bleach.
Roger Tolson
Sir James Dyson: 'So if we leave the EU no one will trade with us? Cobblers...'
“........When the Remain campaign tells us no one will trade with us if we leave the EU, sorry, it’s absolute cobblers. Our trade imbalance with Europe is running at nine billion a month and rising. If this trend continues, that is £100bn a year."If, as David Cameron suggested, they imposed a tariff of 10 per cent on us, we will do the same in return. We buy more from Europe than they buy from us, so we would be the net beneficiary and based on these numbers it would bring £10bn into the UK annually. Added to our net EU contribution, it would make us around £18.5bn better off each year if we left the EU,” he concludes with quiet triumph........."
Green Sand
We really have had quite a lot of YouTube speeches by Tories, and ex-Tories :) , on this thread, so here are a couple with a different view on the World:
Labour MP and founding Member of Grassroots Out, Kate Hoey speaks at the Manchester event (11.7 mins)
For a condensed update, try this:
Mid-Sussex EU Debate - Brendan Chilton (Leave) (5.9 mins)
Robert Christopher
Roger Tolson - sorry, it is a bit of a mind worm.
Green Sand - yes, a very powerful argument. A trick that has been missed by the Brexit side is to reassure the voters that we don't become a rogue state by leaving the EU. Our country is considred one of the least corrupt to do business. We can still trade perfectly easily without any trade agreements at all. We would still be able to travel relatively freely because our passport is considered on of the safest in the World. I remember pre EU passport, the border controls only glanced at the colour to wave us passed. In the future, most of it will be electronic anyway. It may become easier for governments to tax companies like Google because they won't be able to claim that they already paid in Luxembourg or Ireland.
TinyCO2
Having watched the campaign for the last few days it seems the core issue is immigration, so I went to have a look at what the instant effect of the termination of the freedom of movement would be.
Since 1975 data has been available on the country of last residence of immigrants to the UK. Taking the data since 2000 when the The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 and other related regulations came into force.
The top three countries of last residence since then have been as follows (official UK Government data) unfortunately the data only goes to 2014.and I've done my best to format legibly
........2000|-2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014
1st.....Aus|.Aus..|..Aus.|.Aus.|.Ind..|.Pol..|..Pol.|.Pol..|.Pol..|.Ind..|.Ind.|.Ind.|.Chi.|.Chi..|.Ind
2nd..USA.|.Ger..|.Chi...!.USA.|.Aus.|.Ind..|.Ind..|.Ind.|.Ind.|.Pol..|.Pak.|.Chi..|.Ind.|.Spa.|.Chi
3rd....Fra.|.USA.|.USA.|.Ind.|.SA....|.Aus.|Aus..|.Aus.|.Aus.|.Aus.|.Pol..|.Pak..|.Pol..|.Ind.|.Rom
What is unclear to me now is, does being a member of the EU account for the consistently high rankings of countries like Australia, China and India as country of last residence? I was under the impression that caps and limits are possible currently.
Australia seems to be the only country that appears in the top three in both in and out for a number of years, whether this is a swap or people coming staying a while then going back isn't clear.
SandyS
I am totally committed to Brexit and I know why so I am finding it hard to stay engaged on this thread :(
immigration, GDP, exports and our overall balance of trade are all massively important issues but the point is simply about WHO decides how we tackle them, nothing else matters (nods to Metallica ^.^)
Dung
Basically there are very few immigration controls from any country into the UK. Governments and businesses have spent too much time rubbing their hands at all the trade and income tax and never done the sums for all the services and resources they need. 'Ah, but we need all those people to look after the existing people'. Which is essentially pyramid selling.
The public has been trying to get immigration onto the agenda for years only to be told to get back in their cupboard. People who can't get a doctor or a decent school know that there's a serious numbers problem. The elite say it's just racism and anyway the EU won't let them solve the problem. That attitude might be coming back to bite those who imposed it.
Up till recently the global poor and downtrodden thought that migration to the UK was unlikely to succeed but it's now got around that we (with the EU handcuffing us) won't send anyone back. Bonanza. If I was in one of the many poor parts of the world (inc EU), I'd be heading for the UK and the richer parts of the EU as a second choice. The EU has demonstrated it has no idea how to deal with the problem either. It's shoved the problem onto Turkey, which will essentially blackmail the EU, whenever it wants something. The EU has surrendered.
What can the public do but vote for more sympathetic leaders? First step get rid of the totally uncontrollable EU.
TinyCO2
Dung on Jun 14, 2016 at 2:46 PM
"... nothing else matters ..."
Of course, nothing else matters, but there is also a weakness in the structure of the EU that can never be corrected without destroying its raison d'être.
When two organisations negotiate, it is always person to person: it has to be. When those two people are also responsible for implementing the agreement, they would be storing up trouble FOR THEMSELVES if they didn't discuss the implications of the agreement with those further down the food chain: is each sub-section feasible; do any sections contradict each other; what do we buy in and what do we do in house. To make an agreement and still have unthought through lines of text is a risk too far - it's professional misconduct, whether intentional or unintentional! The only way to ensure a credible plan is to work together, not having a central Elite upon whom the masses are in awe, (or not :) )!
The EU bureaucrats, who have no allegiance to any country and therefore do not have any responsibility for implementation, 'negotiate' internally, away from the public eye, with little feedback if at all, similar to Charles I 'negotiating' with his maker, and ignoring his subjects.
Aside from all the national politics, how can the EU be viewed as having a credible process, with joined up management, so that the state can minimise its cost by being economical in its (limited) activities?
Robert Christopher
I care not one jot what the EU thinks about our leaving, I think we should all just focus on getting out. Whatever comes after Brexit we will deal with in our own way and I hope that means a new political dawn for us without any help from those who have tried to destroy our democracy (so goodbye Cameron)
Dung
I've just spent a week in the UK looking after grandchildren during half-term. I was hoping to be enlightened by various news media on various questions which remain unanswered as far as I'm concerned. They are quite straight forward and should be simple for Brexiteers hare to answer for me, where Newspapers, TV and radio couldn't.. I'm looking for actual numbers rather than vague statements of it'll be great honestly trust us or we'll sort that out later, let's just get out first Please don't change the subject by arguing about the words, as these are important issues requiring an answer.
1 Concerning the £350 Million a week.
a How much of the sum provided by the EU currently will continued to be invested in scientific research?
b How much regional aid provided by the EU will continue to be invested in the regions of the UK?
c How much of the £350 million is part of Mrs Thatchers refund and doesn't count as it's already used?
d. How much of the retained £350 million will be spent on the NHS?
e. How much of the retained £350 million will be spent on education?
f How much of the retained £350 million will be spent on defence?
g How much of the £350 million will be used to reduce personal taxation?
h How much of the £350 million will be used to reduce food prices?
2, Concerning immigration
a Will immigration be on a points based system or some other method?
b What is the annual maximum number of immigrants annually permitted under the points system?
c What professions are most urgently required?
d. Are work permits to be limited in duration? If so for how long?
e. Are students guaranteed work permits if the meet the points required for their profession or will they have to return home to apply?
f. Will the required professions list be reviewed annually?
3. For the economy
a What is the anticipated growth in the economy for the first 3 years after Brexit?
b What is the anticipated growth in the economy for the next 3 years after Brexit?
c What is the anticipated growth in the economy for the 10 years after Brexit?
4. For the current housing problem (relevant to both camps but I'd like the Brexit answer)
a What are the plans for new dwelling construction in the 5 years after Brexit?
b What are the plans for the additional housing required for people admitted under the points system
Thank you in advance.
As an aside I went to a couple events related to grandson's football team. It struck me there's a huge reserve of bi-lingual citizens growing up in he UK. In his little team there are two Latvians and a Pole who converse with the rest of the team (6-7 year olds) in perfect English and with their parents in their native tongue. When they reach working age, and if Britain is well organised there's great advantage for companies wanting to sell into growing economies in the new EU using these people. Growth will return to the EU despite politicians' best efforts.
Should the Euro fail then a lot of hard working people will find life a lot more inconvenient. We live near a main transport artery between Portugal and Germany and beyond. As I was driving along this route looking at Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Hungarian and Romanian lorries transporting stuff I realised that only Hungarians, Romanians and I had problems changing currencies when returning to "base". Not an argument for joining the Euro, just an unquantifiable positive, at least as far as I'm concerned.