Britain Considering Leaving the EU

[whichphilosophy]

I tend to agree with many of UKIP’s policies as follows
Slash foreign aid by £25 billion
Increase defence spending. (Given today’s climate I would agree in principle.
British jobs for British workers. China applies this for Chinese workers, HK rigidly enforces this. The Word BRITISH means all of Ethnic backgrounds who have a British passport
In addition I would also recommend
No amnesty for any illegal immigrants but deport them back as soon as possible as a message to several millions who want to flood in.
Allow searches of properties suspected of holding illegal immigrants without advance warning. Such searches must have enough evidence to constitute probable cause. In Southall for instance there are several sheds converted into hovels the Owners are charging something like £1,000 per month.
Heavily fine those who are housing illegal immigrants.
Those making money from Illegal immigration are turning whole areas into slums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH_DU0a-eBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkv-eeCZoC8

Bogus students and holiday makers who never went home

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-UjTP-8s3I

An interesting video about fake qualifications including those for dentists and other fields
SALARIES FOR IMMIGRANT WORKERS
Salaries for guest workers should not be less than what is paid to British nationals
The immigrants are taught to play the system by saying they lost their passports so they can’t be deported.

The UK should change to law to allow deportation back to country of origin with or without passports. This is one of the reasons why the UK is called a soft touch because the illegal are simply released on bail and then work illegally again.

What has your rant on illegal immigration to do with Britain being in the EU or not? There are common standards and procedures in the EU on dealing with illegal immigration:
Directive 2008/115/EC

This Directive explicitly states that Member States 'shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying illegally on their territory'.
If the UK is too lenient about returning illegal immigrants they can only blame themselves.

fG

The link you gave me seems to be a study document on French immigration Policy
Are you referring to EU IMMIGRATION AND ASSYLUM LAW.

I couldn't agree more on the last sentence but the UK is subject not just Eu legislation but the difficulties when the laws cannot be enforced

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...r-the-tragedy-unfolding-in-the-mediterranean/

For if Schengen did not exist, if it was not so easy to travel across Europe unnoticed and migrants would not be arriving in such swarms. The migrants are told that once they reach Italy, Europe is open to them.

Italy, Greece, Spain and Malta are inevitably the ‘countries of arrival’ because they occupy Europe’s closest external border to Africa. They are also the least equipped to deal with the influx of migrants. Reception centres for asylum seekers are squalid and funds are low but since ‘push backs’ are illegal, these countries have no choice but to take migrants in. They are then expected to process their claims, provide asylum seekers with at least temporary accommodation, and accept, on behalf of the EU, the financial burden which comes with these procedures, something which they are increasingly unwilling to do.



Instead the countries of arrival are turning a blind eye, leaving asylum seekers to make their way unobserved across Europe’s open borders to wealthier countries like Germany, Sweden and Finland. Even the UK, although it is outside the Schengen zone, is experiencing an influx of illegal immigrants as a result. The episode in Calais last year where hundreds of North Africans jumped onto a ferry bound for England, one of whom popped out of a woman’s car boot when she had parked outside her home in Kent, is just one fiasco. It would have been funny were it not so frustratingly serious.

At the other end of the spectrum, richer northern European countries are now choosing to ignore Dublin because of the humanitarian implications that come with adhering to it. Finland recently decided not to send immigrants back to countries of first entry anymore in the knowledge that these countries cannot cope. The situation is so confused now that Belgium was recently found guilty of human rights violations for adhering to Dublin by sending a group of asylum seekers back to Greece. The situation is becoming increasingly farcical

 

[whichphilosophy]

As for no more wars As Yugoslavia broke up the EU interference resulted in a major civil war It dithered as 100,000 people were killed. It was only decisive action by the US/NATO stopped the violence which was achieved by the Daytona agreement.

Thank you for providing an excellent example of the nonsensical arguments from the anti-EU side!

1. Yugoslavia was obviously not part of the EU when it broke apart, so this event says precisely nothing about the power of the EU to prevent conflict between its member states.

2. The argument that the EU caused the war in Yugoslavia is absurd. At most it can be said that the EU failed to prevent or stop the war. A major reason for that was differences in the approach to the conflict between Germany on the one hand and the UK/France on the other. If anything, this argues for more, not less, integration of the foreign policies of member states.

fG

While they fumbled NATO took action.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why couldn't Greece default, but still remain in the EU?

Since this is an EU issue, and I don't want to start a new thread, I'm sticking this question here.

Is there a practical reason why Greece could not remain in the EU if it defaults?

Why couldn't it just default -- then put an end to all the loans/bailouts to the deadbeat Greeks, no more. But Greece could still remain a member nation? Why is that not possible? and the best course at this point?

 

[dystopian]

Since this is an EU issue, and I don't want to start a new thread, I'm sticking this question here.

Is there a practical reason why Greece could not remain in the EU if it defaults?

Why couldn't it just default -- then put an end to all the loans/bailouts to the deadbeat Greeks, no more. But Greece could still remain a member nation? Why is that not possible? and the best course at this point?

I think you may be confused. Nobody's saying that if Greece defaults it'll have to leave the EU. What's being talked about is removing it from the Eurozone. Whether or not an exit from the Euro would be a good thing for Greece depends a great deal on which economists you listen to; though even the most positive opinions seem to paint it as the best among bad options. Essentially what would happen is that when Greece defaults, the rest of Europe would no longer maintain the financial life line upon which it currently depends. Which would induce the kind of economic panic which could force the Greeks to exit the Euro.

If anyone's talking about Greece leaving the EU as well, then that may simply be because there's no legal mechanism at present by which a Eurozone member could leave the Euro but still stay in the EU. However, I doubt that'd be anything more than a minor roadblock that'd be worked around.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Since this is an EU issue, and I don't want to start a new thread, I'm sticking this question here.

Is there a practical reason why Greece could not remain in the EU if it defaults?

Why couldn't it just default -- then put an end to all the loans/bailouts to the deadbeat Greeks, no more. But Greece could still remain a member nation? Why is that not possible? and the best course at this point?

I think you may be confused. Nobody's saying that if Greece defaults it'll have to leave the EU. What's being talked about is removing it from the Eurozone. Whether or not an exit from the Euro would be a good thing for Greece depends a great deal on which economists you listen to; though even the most positive opinions seem to paint it as the best among bad options. Essentially what would happen is that when Greece defaults, the rest of Europe would no longer maintain the financial life line upon which it currently depends. Which would induce the kind of economic panic which could force the Greeks to exit the Euro.

If anyone's talking about Greece leaving the EU as well, then that may simply be because there's no legal mechanism at present by which a Eurozone member could leave the Euro but still stay in the EU. However, I doubt that'd be anything more than a minor roadblock that'd be worked around.

Your right. No on in the EU envisaged someone leaving the EURO but staying in Europe.

A Greek exist could be negotiated (GREXIT) Whether it must completely leave the EU if it leaves the single currency would, I am sure be part of the agenda.

 

[whichphilosophy]

An interesting article in the SPECTATOR
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/its-not-just-greece-who-want-to-leave-the-euro/

Also Could the increase in migration affect the EURO
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9560982/the-invasion-of-italy/

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Since this is an EU issue, and I don't want to start a new thread, I'm sticking this question here.

Is there a practical reason why Greece could not remain in the EU if it defaults?

Why couldn't it just default -- then put an end to all the loans/bailouts to the deadbeat Greeks, no more. But Greece could still remain a member nation? Why is that not possible? and the best course at this point?

I think you may be confused. Nobody's saying that if Greece defaults it'll have to leave the EU. What's being talked about is removing it from the Eurozone. Whether or not an exit from the Euro would be a good thing for Greece depends a great deal on which economists you listen to; though even the most positive opinions seem to paint it as the best among bad options. Essentially what would happen is that when Greece defaults, the rest of Europe would no longer maintain the financial life line upon which it currently depends. Which would induce the kind of economic panic which could force the Greeks to exit the Euro.

If anyone's talking about Greece leaving the EU as well, then that may simply be because there's no legal mechanism at present by which a Eurozone member could leave the Euro but still stay in the EU. However, I doubt that'd be anything more than a minor roadblock that'd be worked around.

So there's a difference between the "EU" and the "Eurozone."

But still, it sounds like they're saying Greece will exit from both, whatever the difference is between the two:

http://rt.com/business/267754-greece-euro-exit-debt/
Athens is likely to leave the eurozone and the EU if it fails to reach an agreement to unlock a €7.2 billion bailout installment, said a statement from the Bank of Greece.

“Failure to reach an agreement would, ..., mark the beginning of a painful course that would lead initially to a Greek default and ultimately to the country's exit from the euro area and – most likely – from the European Union,” the bank said in a statement Wednesday.

So I'll check on what the difference is. But still, why would Greece have to exit either?

Does default require it to exit from the "euro area"? Why? They keep saying this, but they don't explain why Greece necessarily would have to "exit" from it.

I thought membership simply means using a common currency, and also some "free trade" between the member nations, elimination of most trade barriers. And some other rules. But does this include that no member can default on their debt? Why would they have such a rule?

I thought the punishment for defaulting on debt is that the debtor then is rejected for future loans, or maybe the terms would become much tougher. But why kick them out of the union?

 

[dystopian]

So there's a difference between the "EU" and the "Eurozone."

Of course there is, have you been living under a rock the past two decades?

But still, it sounds like they're saying Greece will exit from both, whatever the difference is between the two:

http://rt.com/business/267754-greece-euro-exit-debt/
Athens is likely to leave the eurozone and the EU if it fails to reach an agreement to unlock a €7.2 billion bailout installment, said a statement from the Bank of Greece.

“Failure to reach an agreement would, ..., mark the beginning of a painful course that would lead initially to a Greek default and ultimately to the country's exit from the euro area and – most likely – from the European Union,” the bank said in a statement Wednesday.

It is one *possible* outcome. It is by no means the most likely (and indeed, the majority of experts are not considering a departure from the EU as a serious consideration). You have to keep in mind that the Bank of Greece has a clear interest in having Greek's leadership not fuck things up so badly that the country has to default, and that the Greeks want to stay in the Euro (and, obviously, the EU); so establishing the worst cause scenario that could result is a way for the bank to put pressure on leaders.

So I'll check on what the difference is.

Seriously, have you been living under a rock for the past couple of decades? How can you not be aware of the difference between the Eurozone and the EU? Even if you didn't pay any attention to global politics at all, you still should've heard about things that would enable you to understand the basic difference.

The European Union (EU) is a union of 28 European countries. The Eurozone is a monetary union of 19 European Union memberstates that have adopted the Euro as their currency; overseen by the European Central Bank (ECB), which is an institution of the European Union. All countries in the Eurozone are members of the EU, but not all EU members are part of the Eurozone. Some countries, like the UK have opted-out. Others are still in the application process.

But still, why would Greece have to exit either?

Does default require it to exit from the "euro area"? Why? They keep saying this, but they don't explain why Greece necessarily would have to "exit" from it.

A default means they will no longer pay some (or all) of their creditors. They could theoretically (possibly) manage to not pay some creditors and still pay others and come through relatively intact, though this depends a great deal on the good will of outside organizations. If however they were to no longer pay the ECB this means Greece loses its financial lifelines and will no longer be able to pay *any* of its other creditors. This would put extreme stress on the Greek banking system as it holds vast quantities of Greek government debt. This in turn will cause a bank run as people panic and withdraw as much cash as they can before it all dries up. The banks will collapse and Greece will quite literally run out of money; neither the government, the banks, or the Greek people themselves will be able to attract Euros to Greece, meaning the economy as a whole would be doomed. In order to avoid/combat this scenario, the government would have to start printing its own currency (the Drachma), which it then has capital control over. It would have to leave the Eurozone to do this. And because there is no legal way for a country to leave the Eurozone without also leaving the EU, it *might* lead to a EU exit as well. This last point however, is debatable, as it's not really a matter of it being illegal but more a matter of there simply not being a precedent for it; Greece would more than likely be allowed to stay within the EU.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course there is, have you been living under a rock the past two decades?

But still, it sounds like they're saying Greece will exit from both, whatever the difference is between the two:

http://rt.com/business/267754-greece-euro-exit-debt/
Athens is likely to leave the eurozone and the EU if it fails to reach an agreement to unlock a €7.2 billion bailout installment, said a statement from the Bank of Greece.

“Failure to reach an agreement would, ..., mark the beginning of a painful course that would lead initially to a Greek default and ultimately to the country's exit from the euro area and – most likely – from the European Union,” the bank said in a statement Wednesday.

It is one *possible* outcome. It is by no means the most likely (and indeed, the majority of experts are not considering a departure from the EU as a serious consideration). You have to keep in mind that the Bank of Greece has a clear interest in having Greek's leadership not fuck things up so badly that the country has to default, and that the Greeks want to stay in the Euro (and, obviously, the EU); so establishing the worst cause scenario that could result is a way for the bank to put pressure on leaders.

So I'll check on what the difference is.

Seriously, have you been living under a rock for the past couple of decades? How can you not be aware of the difference between the Eurozone and the EU? Even if you didn't pay any attention to global politics at all, you still should've heard about things that would enable you to understand the basic difference.

The European Union (EU) is a union of 28 European countries. The Eurozone is a monetary union of 19 European Union memberstates that have adopted the Euro as their currency overseen by the European Central Bank (ECB), which is an institution of the European Union.

But still, why would Greece have to exit either?

Does default require it to exit from the "euro area"? Why? They keep saying this, but they don't explain why Greece necessarily would have to "exit" from it.

A default means they will no longer pay some (or all) of their creditors. They could theoretically (possibly) manage to not pay some creditors and still pay others and come through relatively intact, though this depends a great deal on the good will of outside organizations. If however they were to no longer pay the ECB this means Greece loses its financial lifelines and will no longer be able to pay *any* of its other creditors. This would put extreme stress on the Greek banking system as it holds vast quantities of Greek government debt. This in turn will cause a bank run as people panic and withdraw as much cash as they can before it all dries up. The banks will collapse and Greece will quite literally run out of money; neither the government, the banks, or the Greek people themselves will be able to attract Euros to Greece, meaning the economy as a whole would be doomed. In order to avoid/combat this scenario, the government would have to start printing its own currency (the Drachma), which it then has capital control over. It would have to leave the Eurozone to do this. And because there is no legal way for a country to leave the Eurozone without also leaving the EU, it *might* lead to a EU exit as well. This last point however, is debatable, as it's not really a matter of it being illegal but more a matter of there simply not being a precedent for it; Greece would more than likely be allowed to stay within the EU.

The problem is that no one in Brussels foresaw such a situation which is why there is no remedy to remain in Europe but leave the Eurozone. It is up to the parties to agree what is best for all involved. Greece was flirting with Russia but I'm not sure if anything would come of it or if there was any benefit.

Nonetheless migrants from Africa are still entering European countries en masse. The European countries don't have the wherewithal in addition to their debts to accommodate a lot of people.

 

[dystopian]

Nonetheless migrants from Africa are still entering European countries en masse. The European countries don't have the wherewithal in addition to their debts to accommodate a lot of people.

Jesus fucking christ. A post about the possibility of a Greek default, and you manage to bring up immigrants again. Obsessed much?

 

[Togo]

Greece would more than likely be allowed to stay within the EU.

Except that some of the criteria for EU membership are financial/economic. If the no longer meet the criteria, there may be some opposition to them remaining members.

Another issue is what it means for the Eurozone if they leave it.

If a country can leave the Eurozone, and pay off its euro debts in a new currency, then Eurozone membership is a lot less of a financial guarantee than it has previously been understood to be.
Additionally, if Greece leaves, then some of the currency speculation pressure will shift to the next-weakest economy in the Eurozone, probably Portugal or Ireland.

 

[dystopian]

Greece would more than likely be allowed to stay within the EU.

Except that some of the criteria for EU membership are financial/economic. If the no longer meet the criteria, there may be some opposition to them remaining members.

That's incorrect. Those criteria are to be met when a state wishes to *join* the EU. Afaik it isn't stated anywhere that a state is to be kicked out if it no longer meets these criteria after having already joined. There will of course be opposition to them remaining members. There would also be opposition to kicking them out. It comes down to what's best for the EU as a whole. I think European leaders as a whole would rather keep Greece in the union than risk the geopolitical consequence (ie; Russia) of a full exit.

Another issue is what it means for the Eurozone if they leave it.

If a country can leave the Eurozone, and pay off its euro debts in a new currency, then Eurozone membership is a lot less of a financial guarantee than it has previously been understood to be.
Additionally, if Greece leaves, then some of the currency speculation pressure will shift to the next-weakest economy in the Eurozone, probably Portugal or Ireland.

Possibly. Honestly, nobody knows exactly what the fall-out will be. It's uncharted territory, and there's many different plausible scenarios.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nonetheless migrants from Africa are still entering European countries en masse. The European countries don't have the wherewithal in addition to their debts to accommodate a lot of people.

Jesus fucking christ. A post about the possibility of a Greek default, and you manage to bring up immigrants again. Obsessed much?

The country will find it harder to accommodate them. Anyway they prefer the UK and Germany.

 

[Togo]

Except that some of the criteria for EU membership are financial/economic. If the no longer meet the criteria, there may be some opposition to them remaining members.

That's incorrect. Those criteria are to be met when a state wishes to *join* the EU. Afaik it isn't stated anywhere that a state is to be kicked out if it no longer meets these criteria after having already joined. There will of course be opposition to them remaining members.

Which is what I actually said, and the point I was making, so thanks for agreeing with me in a post that says how wrong I am.

If you have Greek staying in it raises a number of questions. Are they bound by the financial stability provisions that apply to non-Euro EU members? If not, do they benefit from trade provisions predicated on a trade area where those conditions are met? How hard do other members have to try to stay within the EU rules if Greece can break the rules without leaving? How long do members joining the EU have to keep to the entry criteria before they can 'let go' and go back to their old ways?

There would also be opposition to kicking them out. It comes down to what's best for the EU as a whole. I think European leaders as a whole would rather keep Greece in the union than risk the geopolitical consequence (ie; Russia) of a full exit..

Well of course they would. They'd also rather keep Greece in the Euro-zone. But not at any price.

Another issue is what it means for the Eurozone if they leave it.

If a country can leave the Eurozone, and pay off its euro debts in a new currency, then Eurozone membership is a lot less of a financial guarantee than it has previously been understood to be.
Additionally, if Greece leaves, then some of the currency speculation pressure will shift to the next-weakest economy in the Eurozone, probably Portugal or Ireland.

Possibly. Honestly, nobody knows exactly what the fall-out will be. It's uncharted territory, and there's many different plausible scenarios.

In this case, sure. In the case of the UK leaving, there is of course only one possible scenario, and every other possibility is wrong.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If Greece can be kicked out of the EU, can a state be kicked out of the US?

 

[whichphilosophy]

If Greece can be kicked out of the EU, can a state be kicked out of the US?

There is a mechanism for leaving Europe, through negotiations which could possibly take a few years. I am not aware of one in the USA. I did receive one post some years ago on another forum suggesting that the USA pulls out of Chicago suggesting at the time there were more Americans killed per thousand there than in Iraq. However I could not find any comparative figures

 

[dystopian]

That's incorrect. Those criteria are to be met when a state wishes to *join* the EU. Afaik it isn't stated anywhere that a state is to be kicked out if it no longer meets these criteria after having already joined. There will of course be opposition to them remaining members.

Which is what I actually said, and the point I was making, so thanks for agreeing with me in a post that says how wrong I am.

I don't see where you infer the point of my post was to "say how wrong you are"; that implies the attachment of a sentiment to my post that simply didn't exist there. I simply misunderstood the details of what you were saying and attempted to correct them; needlessly so, it seems.

If you have Greek staying in it raises a number of questions. Are they bound by the financial stability provisions that apply to non-Euro EU members? If not, do they benefit from trade provisions predicated on a trade area where those conditions are met? How hard do other members have to try to stay within the EU rules if Greece can break the rules without leaving? How long do members joining the EU have to keep to the entry criteria before they can 'let go' and go back to their old ways?

Valid questions; though ones that do not necessarily translate into significant EU-wide problems. Temporary exceptions to the rules in order to deal with exceptional circumstances, such as in the case of Greece, could in fact strengthen overall confidence among countries. It'd demonstrate a certain solidarity and promise of support even during dire times; without promoting fiscal negligence in other countries as nobody would want to become like Greece.

Well of course they would. They'd also rather keep Greece in the Euro-zone. But not at any price.

We don't know what the price would be, however. There's only educated guesses at best, and they don't all line up.

In this case, sure. In the case of the UK leaving, there is of course only one possible scenario, and every other possibility is wrong.

I've never said or implied anything of the sort. Indeed, I've acknowledged a wide range of possible scenarios regarding a UK exit. It is, however, beyond question that the consequences would *not* be positive. Just like the consequence of a Greek exit would not be positive. The uncertainty lies in the degree. I have really only taken aim at those who would merrily pretend the UK could leave without any consequences whatsoever; all rainbow and sunshine.

 

[whichphilosophy]

With the Euro nose diving and European countries facing balance of payment deficits the EU is in crisis. Even pro European Britons believe it was a good idea to retain the £. The Euro may increase but is that an increase or would that be bouncing off the bottom.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102577467
It's been a one-way euro trip lower. The common currency has fallen every day this week, and is now near the lowest levels in 12 years.

Now, currency traders are keenly watching American economic data, as better news about the economy could lead the euro drop to intensify.

It all comes down to expectations about the Federal Reserve's next move. Most market participants believe the Fed will raise short-term rate targets this year. That should help the U.S. dollar and hurt the euro, as it means that holding dollars will produce greater returns than holding euros, increasing demand for the greenback. END OF QUOTE

The latest exchange rate will show the fall as of yesterday continuing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Greece would more than likely be allowed to stay within the EU.

Except that some of the criteria for EU membership are financial/economic. If the no longer meet the criteria, there may be some opposition to them remaining members.

Another issue is what it means for the Eurozone if they leave it.

If a country can leave the Eurozone, and pay off its euro debts in a new currency, then Eurozone membership is a lot less of a financial guarantee than it has previously been understood to be.
Additionally, if Greece leaves, then some of the currency speculation pressure will shift to the next-weakest economy in the Eurozone, probably Portugal or Ireland.

The EU is in crisis. If a country remained in the Eurozone but effectively used dollars (if they have any) this may be a temporary solution which would work if the EURO continues its downward spiral. For me I am posted to Italy but paid in UAE dollar pegged DIHRAMS. My rent is effectively less than it was last year by way of the DIHRAM being worth more.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why couldn't Greece default but still remain in the Eurozone?

A default means they will no longer pay some (or all) of their creditors. They could theoretically (possibly) manage to not pay some creditors and still pay others and come through relatively intact, though this depends a great deal on the good will of outside organizations. If however they were to no longer pay the ECB this means Greece loses its financial lifelines and will no longer be able to pay *any* of its other creditors. This would put extreme stress on the Greek banking system as it holds vast quantities of Greek government debt. This in turn will cause a bank run as people panic and withdraw as much cash as they can before it all dries up. The banks will collapse and Greece will quite literally run out of money; neither the government, the banks, or the Greek people themselves will be able to attract Euros to Greece, meaning the economy as a whole would be doomed. In order to avoid/combat this scenario, the government would have to start printing its own currency (the Drachma), which it then has capital control over. It would have to leave the Eurozone to do this.

Something has to be wrong in this scenario somewhere.

Why can't a country just say: "We're broke, we default! sorry" but go on from there. Of course this means no more loans/bailouts.

But then pick up the pieces, with hardship etc., bad times, but slowly start doing the "right thing" instead of all the wrong things they've been doing, and slowly recover?

And why couldn't they continue using the Euro, as the most stable currency, even though they defaulted?

Analogy: Suppose a race of aliens lands from somewhere, sets up a colony on a giant raft in the North Sea (or several colonies on rafts/floating islands), and says "We'd like to join this Eurozone. They have a good standard currency and trading system -- let's apply for membership."

What would prevent them from joining? They start from scratch, some small amount of wealth they brought with them, and some ability to perform some service or produce something and be able to trade with humans.

And no credit! CASH-AND-CARRY ONLY! Would the Eurozone tell them "NO!"? Why? What would make it impossible for them to join and adopt the Euro?

But if it would be possible for this alien community to join the Eurozone, starting new, then why couldn't Greece start over, DEFAULT on everything, and create a new Pay-as-you-go only economy, and stay in the Eurozone and use the Euro?