Harper stands against EU

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why would we pay for a tropical island when we can have Turks and Caicos for free?

Could have.

They don't want us anymore.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by freedogger

I think it is interesting how this is being framed as a Europe thing when in fact it really is a Banking thing.

How is the European soverign debt crisis a banking problem that isn't specific to Europe?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Could have.

They don't want us anymore.

I'm sure they're just saying that because we rejected them.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Could have.

They don't want us anymore.

Still mad about that. Having a Canadian tropical island would have been great.

[Table 5]

I'd take T+C in a heartbeat. I don't care what people say, Vancouver Island is still way too cold and wet to retire too.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'd take T+C in a heartbeat. I don't care what people say, Vancouver Island is still way too cold and wet to retire too.

Kelowna as well. Pretty much half my aunts and uncles have retired to the Okanagon. In the summer it's too hot and in the winter it's grey and depressing. I like going there for one week per year, but any more than that is hell. Summer starts about a month earlier, I'll give them that. But overall it's not a trade up from Calgary weather IMO.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Kelowna as well. Pretty much half my aunts and uncles have retired to the Okanagon. In the summer it's too hot and in the winter it's grey and depressing. I like going there for one week per year, but any more than that is hell. Summer starts about a month earlier, I'll give them that. But overall it's not a trade up from Calgary weather IMO.

Agreed. It's a nice place to go to for a short-term visit, but if you compare it to any real summer destination in the US, Caribbean, Europe etc, it's pretty weak. I really hope Harper uses those fancy new jets to conquer some far away lands closer to the Equator.

Although this Euro crisis is providing some stupidly cheap real estate opportunities in Spain and Greece these days.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Kelowna as well. Pretty much half my aunts and uncles have retired to the Okanagon. In the summer it's too hot and in the winter it's grey and depressing. I like going there for one week per year, but any more than that is hell. Summer starts about a month earlier, I'll give them that. But overall it's not a trade up from Calgary weather IMO.

When it comes to retirement, I am going to look to Africa. You can live like a King, your dollar goes much further.

[tjinaz]

When it comes to retirement, I am going to look to Africa. You can live like a King, your dollar goes much further.

F that.... no good health care on the entire continent. Much rather go to Argentina, Ecuador, Belize or Costa Rica. Stay in same hemisphere and not have to worry about the next strain of monkey related super bugs like HIV or Ebola. Dollar goes plenty far down there too.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

HIV or Ebola. Dollar goes plenty far down there too.

I'm pretty sure your dollar would go far enough to afford condoms or the common sense not to bang locals. Ebola sure. . .

[ranchlandsselling]

Agree on all accounts that hopefully it was considered as a possible strategic advantage to agree to participate in some sort of loan to get something of net benefit to Canada. I'm pretty sad Harper (from what I've read thus far) didn't call them out on their Tar Sands BS at the same time.

The official response should have just been "dirty oil my ass!"

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I really hope Harper uses those fancy new jets to conquer some far away lands closer to the Equator.

Maybe we could just warm up the planet.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by LouCypher

In a general sense the EU expecting money from us to help bail them out is like having your wealthy aunts and uncles who all had more money then you, coming to you for a bail out. Meanwhile you've worked to be responsible and manage your own finances in a responsible way, so now because they wont get what they wont they want to hold our "responsible behavior" against us. They in fact find it "irritating" that we have been able to recover so well from the financial turmoil of the last 5 years or so.

Perhaps the EU could be working with Canada to try to follow our example rather then hold it over our heads.

Of course by no means are we a perfectly responsible nation, but I like how Canada doesn't jump on every bandwagon just because everyone is asking them to.

Oh please gimme a break.

Not that I think Canada should contribute a dime, but take away Canada's natural resources tomorrow and your government is left with no money to throw at a population that is EXACTLY as self-entitled as Europeans are. People in the western countries have been living above their means for decades, simple as that. You guys (and Norway) are just lucky you got this black goo in the soil to support that lifestyle. That's the only difference. Managing finances responsibly my eye.

(BTW can you tell I'm so bitter about this bailout thing?)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Oh please gimme a break.

Not that I think Canada should contribute a dime, but take away Canada's natural resources tomorrow and your government is left with no money to throw at a population that is EXACTLY as self-entitled as Europeans are. People in the western countries have been living above their means for decades, simple as that. You guys (and Norway) are just lucky you got this black goo in the soil to support that lifestyle. That's the only difference. Managing finances responsibly my eye.

(BTW can you tell I'm so bitter about this bailout thing?)

Your point is completely irrelevant, we do have oil and natural resources, so there is no, if you didn't have it you'd be dirt farmers. Before Oil we farmed quite successfully.

Saying if you didn't have Oil you'd be broke sounds like a spoiled 12 year old girl wailing, if you didn't have boobies you wouldn't be popular.

As a nation you have to make due, and at least pretend to live up to your means.

Giving money to Europe is the same as tossing bundles of $500.00 bills into a barrel and lighting them on fire while singing a jaunty hobo tune.

There are no trade concessions that we really need from Europe that are significant enough for us to bail them out, and sending money to them only encourages them to keep asking for more while not getting their houses in order.

Europe literally needs a slap in the face and a dunk in the ice cold water of reality.

We need to safe guard our funds and develop markets that can actually pay for our goods. We need to look at getting away from being so tightly linked to the U.S. economy.

We don't need to give our money to Europe.

[Azure]

I would expect a hell of a lot more than a couple islands and some promises if we do bail them out.

I say screw them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Dear Europe;

Tell you what, you are the grand old lady of the world. So if you want some of this fine Canadian Money, all you have to do is go down this back alley with me and . . . .

[nik-]

Ze Germans are mad at us

[Itse]

I'm sorry but I need to say this:

This is one of those threads where I really just feel like doing a facepalm. There is so little info to go around on what is going on in Europe politically and financially in this thread, and so many huge misconceptions that it's hard to even start commenting on anything.

Let me give a few basic pointers as to what's going on. These are simplifications but it's a really complicated mess as a whole and I'm trying to avoid making highly controversial claims.

To start with it's important to remember that the EU has always been a pet project of high-level politicians and corporate interests with limited public support. Essentially every public vote to expand the powers of the EU has needed huge piles of campaign money to be pushed through and even then most of the votes have barely made it through.

Essentially the EU can not in any shape or form be said to be representative of it's constituent countries, and there has always been widespread scepticism towards it.

So basicly, while there is money in the EU countries, the EU figureheads can't access it easily. What they can do however is lend money from the outside and present these more palatable bills to their national parliaments. Which is where this ties in with Canada.

General scepticism is however not the only reason why the EU decisionmakers are hesitant to put anything to parliamentary votes on a national level these days.

Basicly you can say the a general feeling is (with almost unanimous expert backing) that the current EU leaders have completely screwed up in their handling of the crisis. They are incompetent and indecisive, they can't get things done and should not be trusted with money. In the company I keep for example the Finnish financial minister and the prime minister have become walking jokes with zero political credibility.

There is also the broader question of whether or not the idea of simply shoveling tax payer money into countries in trouble is of any use. It's a plan that's been going on for a while with nothing to show for it really. The bills are simply getting bigger, and the crisis is getting deeper.

(This is actually also in line with what many financial experts stated from the very start; the banks in debt should simply be put down, if the countries go bankrupt then so be it and most specifically the institutions that gave out those bad loans should simply accept their losses and move on. Had this been the path taken at the start of the crisis, many experts say, the crisis would be over by now and the European economy on the rise again.)

The Euro has been one of the more popular EU projects, but even in that case many on the national level have questioned the wisdom of bringing in countries with such poor records of handling their affairs, such as Greece. However since no parliament or public votes have been needed to expand the Euro zone, it has grown despite numerous warnings from experts and much murmuring in the media. Which basicly means that a lot of people are now going "See, what do those politicians know" and not at all willing to open their wallets to pay for something they thought was a bad idea to begin with.

This essentially boils down to the fact that many politicians feel that presenting these bills to their national parliaments might be political suicide, even if they get the votes needed. So they are looking for workarounds.

As to why people are starting to move to the left with their votes;

Most of these problems tie in with decisively right wing policies. The right wing doctrine states that bailing out the financial institutions with tax payer money is the only option and nothing else can even be discussed. The centrist and leftist parties are rightfully pointing out that the current policies are not working and generally speaking the right wing policies of uncontrolled financial sectors and constant tax-cuts are the main problem here, not public spending. In many cases they can also point out to the fact that much like in the US, the idea that the rightist politicians are small government and the leftist are big spenders is a myth not grounded in facts. As a prime example, the current right wing government in Greece spent huge amounts of money on new tanks in the middle of this crisis and have done nothing do cut any of the more right-wing expenditures. (Which btw shent shivers down a lot of spines in Greece, as they had a military junta there as recently as the seventies.)

So there is a spreading feeling that the right wing governments have simply abused the crisis for political gains instead of trying to solve it.

Another thing to remember is that there are basicly no important socialist parties in Europe, despite what Fox news might say. The "socialists" in France are about as much socialists as the Democrats are left wing, which is to say not at all.

Even the Greek "coalition of the radical left" (often wrongfully labeled as a "far-left party" or "communist party" in the media) SYRIZA that is growing in power right now is mostly comprised of quite moderate left wingers, and their policies are really only radical in comparison to the general political winds of the last decade. (The coalition does have some radical minority parties in it though.)

It's also important to note that the statement "the west has simply lived beyond it's means" is a really questionable one. In most cases this is not a crisis of public spending, it's a crisis of the financial institutions. And unlike in the US, those financial crisis do not stem from widespread overspending by it's citizens in things such as housing. Many governments around Europe have budgets that are quite alright, and the only real problem they have is these growing bills that are pushed at them to prop up financial institutions of questionable value.

Of course one reasn why the left-wing parties have not made more gains despite all this is that many of them are seen as equally corrupt, incompetent and simply out of date with their policies. Which is propably true for a large part.

Also of note: the problems with Greece were well known, but the EU let them slide for a very long time because of political reasons.

If there's just one thing I'd hope you remember from this long-winded explanation it's this:

The EU does not equal Europe any more than the UN equals the worlds, and there should be no assumption that what the EU does somehow represents either general European opinions or general European interests.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Itse

Most of these problems tie in with decisively right wing policies. The right wing doctrine states that bailing out the financial institutions with tax payer money is the only option and nothing else can even be discussed.

Dude I always read your posts and agreed with what you wrote up until this part where I stopped reading...Private profits and socialised losses is a right wing doctrine? lmao...you can't be serious.

This is precisely what is happening - German/French/Dutch/Spanish banks going insane (lending money to bottomless pits while charging extra risk premiums and now the house of cards fell on them..correction..was about to fall on them, but the ECB came to the rescue and bought their toxic debt so now its the european taxpayer holding the bag of poo that was originally in bank's hands. This is what happened but how in the world is a right wing doctrine? A right wing doctrine would be to let the banks fall, investors will be taken to the cleaners and when the dust settles the economy (healthier) would move on.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by freedogger

I think it is interesting how this is being framed as a Europe thing when in fact it really is a Banking thing.

Except for that whole sovereign debt issue. You know...the one where Greece needs a bailout, and there are all kinds of other countries who have either already been bailed out or might need to be. Otherwise though, sure, its a banking issue.