Future of the European Union

[Pannonian]

Rofl, did you forget to add the tag "neoliberal" to the rest of the invective directed at the euthor?

Play the ball, not the man.

As an aside, James Rogers begun his career as an EU foreign policy analyst.

That was the strategy of Leave. Throw enough lies around, and if Remain stick to playing the ball, there is never enough time to refute all the lies (many of which, like the 350m for the NHS promise, have some kind of weaselly loophole to excuse the liars), which means enough of them circulate. I haven't said neoliberal because I was just quoting what the wiki article said, and neoconservative is the description they use. In case people have forgotten what neoconservatism is, look up Project For a New American Century, the think tank that sent the US and UK into Iraq.

[Furunculus]

That was the strategy of Leave. Throw enough lies around....(some further guff)

Right, so show me the lies?

[Pannonian]

Right, so show me the lies?

Try the 350m per week for the NHS claim, which was disowned after the referendum, with the explanation that it was an aspiration, not a promise. There's the claim that Turkey was about to enter the EU. Which they were never close to, and even if they were, we could always veto it. Was that the truth too? What about the recent claim from the trade minister that the EU-Japan trade deal will boost UK exports by billions? What about the same idiot's claim that the UK-EU trade deal will be the easiest in the world to negotiate? What about the promise that a 52-48 result would not be the end of the matter?

I'd like some truth about the implementation of Brexit as well. Such as the process behind engaging Seaborne when the company has no assets and no experience, yet was given a 14m contract. The Times has also reported that latest cabinet discussions suggest that 30k troops will need to be ready to prepare for Brexit, not 3k as was previously thought to be the case, based on the experience of the 2001 fuel protests (an incident that I've cited as an example of the problems that we'll be facing, but was either dismissed or ignored by you and other Brexiters). Why is such a deployment necessary, and does your document address the issues behind the necessity of such a deployment? NB. this isn't a think tank, whose purpose is to peddle fantasies, producing these plans. It's the government.

At what point do we stop trying to focus on the fine detail, and conclude that the whole thing is a fundamentally bad idea?

[Furunculus]

No.

No, no, no.

Tell me about the lies of this piece that allows you to write it off without any critique of the methodology.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Boys, look, I am starting up a microbrewery and to be honest the price of hops is killing me. Californian's just love these 150 IBU IPAs, it's disgusting but that's the market for you.

Starting March 29th, I am buying up all those quality German hops that no longer have a destination to go to at discount prices. Please don't sign May's deal, otherwise it's gonna screw up my profit margins.

[Pannonian]

No.

No, no, no.

Tell me about the lies of this piece that allows you to write it off without any critique of the methodology.

Will you summarise it, or highlight the salient points? Given the track record of Brexiteers, I'm not too hopeful there's anything worth bothering with. Eg. your and their bright idea of following the Singapore model as an economy. Except that Singapore is a city with very little hinterland, and doing as you say would result in the loss of our agricultural industry. Which you said you were fine with, but which immediately makes it unacceptable to me and probably a sizeable majority of the UK population. And if you think I should have to read all of it myself; well, I've cited and summarised the testimony of Mr Trucker, showing how government policy has been influenced by it, and you still say that you can't be bothered to listen to it or read it.

And will you address the latest news on the government's implementation of Brexit? This isn't a dream peddled by a think tank, that can invent all kinds of stuff and dare you to prove them wrong. It's reportage of what the government is actually doing or planning about this thing you voted for.

[Pannonian]

Boys, look, I am starting up a microbrewery and to be honest the price of hops is killing me. Californian's just love these 150 IBU IPAs, it's disgusting but that's the market for you.

Starting March 29th, I am buying up all those quality German hops that no longer have a destination to go to at discount prices. Please don't sign May's deal, otherwise it's gonna screw up my profit margins.

You don't need hops. Just use some cheap artificial preservatives and the US trade deal will require us to accept it. Come to think of it, you don't need the other traditional ingredients either. Mix industrial alcohol with some flavourings, and you're good to go. Give it some traditional English name for marketing here as well, as the EU will no longer be protecting our regional brands.

[Furunculus]

Will you summarise it, or highlight the salient points? Given the track record of Brexiteers, I'm not too hopeful there's anything worth bothering with. Eg. your and their bright idea of following the Singapore model as an economy. Except that Singapore is a city with very little hinterland, and doing as you say would result in the loss of our agricultural industry. Which you said you were fine with, but which immediately makes it unacceptable to me and probably a sizeable majority of the UK population. And if you think I should have to read all of it myself; well, I've cited and summarised the testimony of Mr Trucker, showing how government policy has been influenced by it, and you still say that you can't be bothered to listen to it or read it.

And will you address the latest news on the government's implementation of Brexit? This isn't a dream peddled by a think tank, that can invent all kinds of stuff and dare you to prove them wrong. It's reportage of what the government is actually doing or planning about this thing you voted for.
There is an executive summary, put on your big boy pants and try reading it.

If you get to any difficult words let me know, and I'll help.

[Pannonian]

There is an executive summary, put on your big boy pants and try reading it.

If you get to any difficult words let me know, and I'll help.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker's testimony yet? The government have already written policy in response to it. Do you still think it is too insignificant to take notice of?

And again, what do you think of the latest news of the government's implementation of Brexit? It's not think tank fantasy, but actual news of what the government is actually doing.

[Pannonian]

Well,, I gave it a go, which is more than can be said for you and Mr Trucker. This early sentence didn't augur well: "Building on the “Audit of Geopolitical Capability” from September 2017", as it builds on something that must have some kind of credibility in order for this update to have any. Googling that document mainly returns reports of this document, with the headline claim that the UK is 2nd most powerful country in the world by its reckoning, which immediately sets off BS alarms. Still, I went a bit further, and looked at the methodology, as you suggested. The study is broken down into various areas. A look at these includes a number of areas where experts in these fields have been forthright on how Brexit damages them (the latest, universities). So I'd like you to explain why I should overlook their expert opinions in favour of this think tank document whose headline conclusion screams BS to me.

One thing tickled me though. In order to seem scientific and everything, the study presents its findings on stylised maps with metrics on the edge and how high the UK rates. The list of countries thus studied is quite exhaustive, but there are still some gaps. To help fill these gaps, here's one for Ousmane Dembele (https://twitter.com/FussballRadars/status/1004367306825306112/photo/1). Lionel Messi (https://twitter.com/fussballradars/status/748848975512424448?lang=en). Cristiano Ronaldo vs Arjen Robben (https://twitter.com/fussballradars/status/835629656871157761?lang=en). I'm sure there are others.

[Furunculus]

doesn't fit the narrative. very troubling i know.

he's only been in front of parliamentary committees half a dozen times, wrong type of expert.

[Montmorency]

No.

No, no, no.

Tell me about the lies of this piece that allows you to write it off without any critique of the methodology.

China is graded to have "cultural prestige" about par with Saudi Arabia? Tosh. Cultural prestige is not a function of "freedom to create" (the weightiest component of the instrument). China is probably in the top 20 or even 10 for soft power, certainly above - what the hell does KSA even have, holy cities?

(I didn't read anything, just glanced at one of the tables.)



Boys, look, I am starting up a microbrewery and to be honest the price of hops is killing me. Californian's just love these 150 IBU IPAs, it's disgusting but that's the market for you.

Starting March 29th, I am buying up all those quality German hops that no longer have a destination to go to at discount prices. Please don't sign May's deal, otherwise it's gonna screw up my profit margins.

Real or satire?

[Pannonian]

doesn't fit the narrative. very troubling i know.

You're missing the point. The metrics that the study cites, such as education, trade, etc. are areas that the expert opinions are almost unanimous on that Brexit is bad. And the conclusion that the UK is 2nd in the world? Presumably the US is top, which puts us above China. And the study looks at the EU countries in isolation, but as we've seen from the exit negotiations, the EU acts as a bloc. And even so, this would still put us ahead of Germany. And it puts us ahead of Japan, which has a far higher GDP than us, twice the population, better education, better productivity, greater industrialisation, etc. Is this because soft power puts us ahead? But look at another of the arguments put forward: that Nigeria should replace the EU, citing its population and economy. But isn't Japan far ahead of us by these metrics? If we are ahead of Japan by other metrics, how does that put Nigeria ahead of the EU? Especially as the EU is far ahead on just about every metric, and has a greater population to boot.

And those maps that are supposed to be impressive: I know what they are. They're called football radars, and are used to analyse football players. They are used because tables and bar charts are boring. Their proof of concept is how they can demonstrate a common sense fact: that Leo Messi is far better than anyone else. They're not trusted for anything other than a very broad overview, and they have limitations based on the metrics being used. Your chosen metrics are dodgy based on how experts in these fields view your arguments, and unlike football radars, they do not demonstrate a common sense fact as proof of concept. Choose irrelevant metrics, and Harry Maguire is a better player than Leo Messi. Which he's not, and any study that claims it forfeits credibility. Even more so when the arguments within are applied inconsistently to produce far out claims.

If this is supposed to be your decisive card in showing how your argument prevails, it's been just as much a waste of time as I'd anticipated just by looking at who produced it. Are you going to listen to Mr Trucker's testimony, now that I've read the rubbish that you've told me to read?

[Pannonian]

Oh hang on. The replacement of the EU with Nigeria isn't a political conclusion, but a condition of the study, because


As the Eu is not a country, and insofar as there is insufficient data to ascertain its geopolitical
capability – the sum of its parts would not be representative of its own performance – it has
been excluded from the Audit. Instead, nigeria has been included to provide better
representation of Africa. Indeed, nigeria is now the largest economy in Africa, as well as the
continent’s most populous country. 32 nigeria is also expected to increase markedly in
economic weight and population over the coming half-century, with perhaps as many as 410
million citizens by 2050, and its economy producing more in terms of nominal Gross Domestic
Product than Italy.

Is the EU not an economic bloc? Has the EU not acted as a political bloc wrt the UK during the exit negotiations? Is this a way to remove the EU from consideration because the EU is too powerful to fit into the chosen narrative?

[Pannonian]

China is graded to have "cultural prestige" about par with Saudi Arabia? Tosh. Cultural prestige is not a function of "freedom to create" (the weightiest component of the instrument). China is probably in the top 20 or even 10 for soft power, certainly above - what the hell does KSA even have, holy cities?

(I didn't read anything, just glanced at one of the tables.)


One of the greatest acts of Chinese soft power is its investment in 3rd world countries with infrastructure that they can't pay for, which the Chinese eventually take over on default. Given my interests, Pakistan is a pretty detailed example of the Chinese MO, and Pakistanis (or at least their middle class) aren't happy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

One of the greatest acts of Chinese soft power is its investment in 3rd world countries with infrastructure that they can't pay for, which the Chinese eventually take over on default. Given my interests, Pakistan is a pretty detailed example of the Chinese MO, and Pakistanis (or at least their middle class) aren't happy.
Really? I consider that a liability. paying millions for infrastructure which you do not directly control. What is to stop a country from nationalizing it? Are they going to try the same approach the US and British did in the middle east in response to secular, socialist, pan-arabism?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Real or satire?

Closer to the latter. Unfortunately, I know in my heart that when no deal happens, the EU will likely pay full price to the farmers for any cancelled UK shipments and then torch the supply.

[Montmorency]

Really? I consider that a liability. paying millions for infrastructure which you do not directly control. What is to stop a country from nationalizing it? Are they going to try the same approach the US and British did in the middle east in response to secular, socialist, pan-arabism?

Without foreign support, a country like Sri Lanka or Zambia practicing maximum defiance against Chinese neocolonialism is going to have some hard times in short order. Whether China or non-national organizations, intsoc is necessary.


Closer to the latter. Unfortunately, I know in my heart that when no deal happens, the EU will likely pay full price to the farmers for any cancelled UK shipments and then torch the supply.

These contracts are long-term, aren't they? Maybe the EU farmers have begun shifting buyers by now?

[Husar]

Californian's

*Californians

I agree with the rest though.

[Pannonian]

Really? I consider that a liability. paying millions for infrastructure which you do not directly control. What is to stop a country from nationalizing it? Are they going to try the same approach the US and British did in the middle east in response to secular, socialist, pan-arabism?

Most of the workers are Chinese. The elite get kickbacks, the Chinese get the infrastructure. See the British in India.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Without foreign support, a country like Sri Lanka or Zambia practicing maximum defiance against Chinese neocolonialism is going to have some hard times in short order. Whether China or non-national organizations, intsoc is necessary.

Key point is without foreign support. We can be that support.




These contracts are long-term, aren't they? Maybe the EU farmers have begun shifting buyers by now?

If the contracts are long term they were written well before the Brexit vote, and I don't see how you wouldn't be obligated to fulfill the terms of the contract up until the moment of Brexit.
I am expected to deliver grain shipment on March 30th, and I don't prepare that shipment because of Brexit but suddenly a deal is signed at the last moment and business continues as usual, am I not violating the contract?

Can you even begin to shift buyers and make commitments before March 29th? No one knows the outcome yet.

[a completely inoffensive name]

*Californians

I agree with the rest though.

boo, autocorrect.


Most of the workers are Chinese. The elite get kickbacks, the Chinese get the infrastructure. See the British in India.

Are those workers permanent? Are there Chinese residents across Africa now maintaining and operating it, or is it the local populace doing the day to day maintenance and operations? Makes a big difference between the legal ownership and the de facto ownership if we are talking about hardball politics.

[Montmorency]

Key point is without foreign support. We can be that support.




If the contracts are long term they were written well before the Brexit vote, and I don't see how you wouldn't be obligated to fulfill the terms of the contract up until the moment of Brexit.
I am expected to deliver grain shipment on March 30th, and I don't prepare that shipment because of Brexit but suddenly a deal is signed at the last moment and business continues as usual, am I not violating the contract?

Can you even begin to shift buyers and make commitments before March 29th? No one knows the outcome yet.

Not in our contemporary disposition. We can't outcolonialize or outcorrupt China, and we certainly shouldn't try. Western corps have historically been unleashed to this purpose already of course, but they're more enemy than servant of "free peoples".

The problem is I don't know anything about agricultural markets, but to some extent I imagine Brexit has been priced in starting 2.5 years ago. That is, the process begins with the vote result, not with the deadline.

Here's one report on a WTO/no-deal scenario I found, though just from a glance I can't tell if it describes the actual micro conduct of agribusiness contracts and financials: EU - UK agricultural trade: state of play and possible impacts of Brexit (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/602008/IPOL_STU(2017)602008_EN.pdf)


This report analyzes current UK-EU27 agri-food trade, and quantifies the
impacts of a return to WTO rules after Brexit. Agri-food trade is likely to
decrease steeply, especially for meat and dairy sectors. However, there
might be an opportunity for an increase in production in a reduced
number of European sectors, such as red meat, cattle or wheat, to
replace imports from the UK. More generally, Ireland is likely to be the
most negatively impacted country and deserves particular attention
during the Brexit process


The relationship between the UK and the EU27 is characterized by a marked
dissymmetry. The EU27, as a whole, is a large market (more than 445 million
inhabitants and a GDP of USD 13.8 thousand billion in 2016), while the UK is relatively
smaller (a population of 65.6 million people and a GDP of USD 2.6 thousand billion).
Thus, the EU27 represents a large market and outlet for UK exporters, while the UK is,
in comparison, a small market for EU27 (even if it represents the main export
destination of some agri-food sectors in given EU27 countries). For these reasons,
macroeconomic impacts on the UK are significantly larger (e.g. -2.3% in GDP) than for
EU27 (-0.3%). Nevertheless, the UK is currently the second largest EU28 country and
is highly integrated with the EU27 in terms of trade and value chains. As a result, all
the EU27 countries will be negatively affected by Brexit, the magnitude of the impact
increasing with economic proximity to the UK. Ireland in particular (-3.4% in GDP,
USD -63.4 billion), and to a much lesser extent Belgium and Luxembourg (-0.7%) and
the Netherlands (-0.5%), are the most affected countries.


Agri-food products are less traded than manufactured ones and contribute less in total
GDP. They will face however the largest increases in trade protection, both in terms of
tariffs and non-tariff measures. Agri-food exports of the EU27 to the UK will decrease
by USD 34 billion (62%) and imports by USD 19 billion (with the same relative
decrease, 62%).


Trade diversion will take place; part of the decrease in exports to the UK will be
compensated by an increase in intra-EU27 trade (+1%) as well as in exports to third
countries (+0.9%). This is partly explained by a loss of UK’s competitiveness, due to
higher prices of imported intermediary consumptions. In the end, agri-food exports of
the EU27 to the world will decrease by 4.1% (USD -27 billion). The most affected
sectors (in value terms) are processed food (USD -10.5 billion, -4.7%),1 which is also
the most exported (33% of EU27 agri-food exports), white meat (USD -5.2 billion, -
10.5%) and dairy (USD -4.6 billion, -7%). The Netherlands (USD -6.7 billion, -66%),
Ireland (USD -6.5 billion, -71%) and France (USD -4.7 billion, -51%) undergo the
largest drops in exports.


Agri-food production and value added are also affected by trade with other countries
as well as domestic demand. The relative magnitude of each of these effects
(bilateral trade with the UK, trade with third countries and domestic demand) varies across
countries and sectors and determines Brexit’s impact heterogeneity.
In the UK, agrifood value-added increases (+2%), mainly because local production partially
substitutes imports from the EU27. This takes place at consumers expense since
consumption prices increase by 4%. In the EU27 as a whole, agri-food value-added
decreases by 0.8%; the increase in exports to third countries and in intra-EU trade do
not compensate for the loss of exports to UK. Even if in all EU27 countries, overall
agri-food value-added decreases, some sectors like Red meat (+2.1%) and Cattle
(+1.3%) in France gain thanks to their capacity to fulfill the domestic demand,
replacing imports from the UK. The wheat sector in France is one of the few where
value added increases (+1.7%) thanks to an increase in exports to other EU countries.
The fall in agri-food value-added is particularly large in Ireland (-16%, with a collapse
in white meat, -58%), because of the decrease in exports to UK but also to general
equilibrium effects leading to a strong decrease in domestic demand.


• Because of its tight relationship with the UK, of all EU27 countries, Ireland is affected
the most by Brexit, and not only in agri-food sectors. In relative terms, its GDP
decreases even more than UK's GDP (-3.4% vs -2.4%). This is explained by a drop in
Irish agri-food exports to the UK and to the rest of the World, including EU27 countries
as Irish production relies heavily on imported intermediates from the UK.

Hmm, UK always screwing the Irish.

But the term we're looking for is therefore "trade diversion". For EU producers who have been exporting to the UK, what is the nature of Brexit-related trade diversion? Here's a study (https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=ECOMOD2018&paper_id=355) on UK but not EU. TLDR

Articles on why EU agricultural policy (CAP) is good or bad. Articles on effect of Brexit on CAP. IDK what on the nitty gritty of how trade is executed.

That's about as much as I'm willing to work on this subject.


Are those workers permanent? Are there Chinese residents across Africa now maintaining and operating it, or is it the local populace doing the day to day maintenance and operations? Makes a big difference between the legal ownership and the de facto ownership if we are talking about hardball politics.

AFAIK yes, Chinese nationals

Small developing countries generally have a bad track record of trying to seize and operate technologically-reliant industry, nah?

[Pannonian]

boo, autocorrect.



Are those workers permanent? Are there Chinese residents across Africa now maintaining and operating it, or is it the local populace doing the day to day maintenance and operations? Makes a big difference between the legal ownership and the de facto ownership if we are talking about hardball politics.

I don't know about Africa, but in Pakistan the Pakistani (middle class) are complaining that all the higher end jobs are taken by Chinese, meaning that even "investment" has little meaning, as all the skilled jobs that build up a middle class are reserved for Chinese. Presumably it's the same in African countries as well, and anywhere else they're doing this. The last I heard is that in Kenya they were taking over port facilities that were defaulted on. And it's formal Chinese policy to build a new Silk Road on the high seas, gaining control of strategic points between China and Africa.

[Furunculus]

Oh hang on. The replacement of the EU with Nigeria isn't a political conclusion, but a condition of the study, because



Is the EU not an economic bloc? Has the EU not acted as a political bloc wrt the UK during the exit negotiations? Is this a way to remove the EU from consideration because the EU is too powerful to fit into the chosen narrative?

don't get me wrong, i have my own questions about the methodology:

1. it would have been valuable to include citations of research, not just total investment, as a measure to capture the quality of research. a way to excise all the valueless grievance studies, but i understand that data was difficult to capture.
2. it would have been interesting to include all the EU G20 nations as an composite to capture the 'power' of the EU. yes, you would lose the value of the minor nations, but you also have to consider the penalty induced by the poor decision making process.

but in so far as it goes, i think it is a valuable piece of work.

[Fragony]

France is realy heating up, they are like that they are hotheads, tell me about it I had a few French girlfriends. Things look bad for Macron, and all the better for those who do not want any eu

Everybody knew this was going to happen

[Husar]

What is to stop a country from nationalizing it?

A US invasion to stop the country from going communist.

There are countries where children are allowed to smoke because the government once dared to try and ban smoking and thereby violated the interests of international investors...
Don't underestimate the enforcement power of international capitalism as long as the investor is rich enough and not a small or medium business owner.

[Stazi]

France is realy heating up, they are like that they are hotheads, tell me about it I had a few French girlfriends. Things look bad for Macron, and all the better for those who do not want any eu

Everybody knew this was going to happen

I'm not sure what's going to happen but the funny thing is that it all blew up in the Macron's face a few days after he said to Trump that EU will build an army to fight against US. Coincidence? I don't think so. Generally, the whole idea of EU army is far beyond bad. It's totally evil. Only people who doesn't know the last 100 years of European history can think that's a good idea.

[a completely inoffensive name]

AFAIK yes, Chinese nationals

Small developing countries generally have a bad track record of trying to seize and operate technologically-reliant industry, nah?

Hmm, then I shall resume my fear of Chinese hegemony until their demographic crisis undermines their treasury.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A US invasion to stop the country from going communist.

There are countries where children are allowed to smoke because the government once dared to try and ban smoking and thereby violated the interests of international investors...
Don't underestimate the enforcement power of international capitalism as long as the investor is rich enough and not a small or medium business owner.

I don't think the US would care about the type of government if we are talking about a hypothetical Cold War with China for influence in Africa.

[Montmorency]

Hmm, then I shall resume my fear of Chinese hegemony until their demographic crisis undermines their treasury.

Not sure what your focus on the treasury is, the Chinese state exists on its centrifugal force of action, which isn't reliant on mere balance sheets, just like budget deficits will never bring down the United States. It's the social conditions that matter, and those aren't favorable anywhere, let alone undergirding a fantasy of Cold War. Birth rates in the US are and have also steeply declined, and it's not merely because people are more "educated". "It's the economy, stupid."

The post-Mao CCP state relies on concertive control and diffuse authoritarianism coupled with bread and circuses to maintain stability above a certain threshold. Obviously China has some capacity to go full totalitarian given its massive state organs, but this would be a last resort and therefore the real test of the Chinese model. Throne of bayonets and all that. In a global market capitalist society, China collapses last, after it loses control of its supply chains as the world system disintegrates. Rather than a traditional Cold War, you should be thinking in terms of a new world order that can subvert and obviate Chinese mercantilist aspirations and preserve our civilization in the long term.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not sure what your focus on the treasury is, the Chinese state exists on its centrifugal force of action, which isn't reliant on mere balance sheets, just like budget deficits will never bring down the United States. It's the social conditions that matter, and those aren't favorable anywhere, let alone undergirding a fantasy of Cold War. Birth rates in the US are and have also steeply declined, and it's not merely because people are more "educated". "It's the economy, stupid."

The post-Mao CCP state relies on concertive control and diffuse authoritarianism coupled with bread and circuses to maintain stability above a certain threshold. Obviously China has some capacity to go full totalitarian given its massive state organs, but this would be a last resort and therefore the real test of the Chinese model. Throne of bayonets and all that. In a global market capitalist society, China collapses last, after it loses control of its supply chains as the world system disintegrates. Rather than a traditional Cold War, you should be thinking in terms of a new world order that can subvert and obviate Chinese mercantilist aspirations and preserve our civilization in the long term.

Well if you want to talk about social conditions, China's debt has increased rapidly to levels on par with the US (as % of gdp) which is just a balance sheet as you say however:
* China's GDP per capita is only 8,800ish which is below Russia. The average wealth per individual is just not at Western standards despite Western levels of debt.
* China's birth rates are below that of the United States (1.6 vs 1.8). My understanding is that by 2029 China's population will start to decline (see point below why I think US pop won't decline). By mid century, US is projected to have 20% of it's population 65+ years, while China will be at 25%. This is assuming that those numbers don't change dramatically (don't count on that).
* Despite the steady 6-7% growth for the past decade, China's economic growth will eventually cool off and attitudes in Chinese markets will shift accordingly. Likely before the big demographic transition hits. I don't think this is a particularly outrageous prediction.
* US policy towards immigration (ignoring Trump), is much more accepting and encouraged than China. I do not anticipate social conditions to change in China to point in which China becomes a more multicultural country. If Japanese society has yet to yield to corporate demands for outside labor (despite declining in total population for the past few years), I doubt China's society will either.

My thinking is in terms of policy and demographics. Debt is a metric by which the performance of government policy can be measured. The amount of debt may not matter so much, but the rate at which the debt increases and anticipation towards management of future debt does. But sure, it is just one metric among many. As long as US maintains domestic policies that keep the population stable, and relatively young we will maintain our competitiveness.

Honestly, I think as long as the United States can keep itself composed and dedicated as the liberal democracy we wish for it to be, we can wait for the cumulative effect of bad Chinese domestic policy to catch up.

Hasn't China already gone full totalitarian on the Tibetans and Uyghurs?

[Montmorency]

Well if you want to talk about social conditions, China's debt has increased rapidly to levels on par with the US (as % of gdp) which is just a balance sheet as you say however:
* China's GDP per capita is only 8,800ish which is below Russia. The average wealth per individual is just not at Western standards despite Western levels of debt.
* China's birth rates are below that of the United States (1.6 vs 1.8). My understanding is that by 2029 China's population will start to decline (see point below why I think US pop won't decline). By mid century, US is projected to have 20% of it's population 65+ years, while China will be at 25%. This is assuming that those numbers don't change dramatically (don't count on that).
* Despite the steady 6-7% growth for the past decade, China's economic growth will eventually cool off and attitudes in Chinese markets will shift accordingly. Likely before the big demographic transition hits. I don't think this is a particularly outrageous prediction.
* US policy towards immigration (ignoring Trump), is much more accepting and encouraged than China. I do not anticipate social conditions to change in China to point in which China becomes a more multicultural country. If Japanese society has yet to yield to corporate demands for outside labor (despite declining in total population for the past few years), I doubt China's society will either.

My thinking is in terms of policy and demographics. Debt is a metric by which the performance of government policy can be measured. The amount of debt may not matter so much, but the rate at which the debt increases and anticipation towards management of future debt does. But sure, it is just one metric among many. As long as US maintains domestic policies that keep the population stable, and relatively young we will maintain our competitiveness.

Honestly, I think as long as the United States can keep itself composed and dedicated as the liberal democracy we wish for it to be, we can wait for the cumulative effect of bad Chinese domestic policy to catch up.

Hasn't China already gone full totalitarian on the Tibetans and Uyghurs?

Premise: Population growth really doesn't matter, because the current growth paradigm - where everyone is a worker and consumer - is proving unsustainable and must shift into a subsistence paradigm. If we don't collectively accomplish this as a species, we will fall collectively as a species, and power politics become deprecated (or take a new form with new actors on a lower level). An aging population therefore matters not in terms of lost capacity, but increasing pressure on the livelihoods and expectations of average citizens, one of the many overdetermining factors among those like lack of responsive government; work stress; access to living space, medical care, education, amenities; hyperreal mass media expectations; lack of metaphysical grounding. These factors are crushing us throughout the world, right? This (increasingly less) latent desperation is for example what's behind events like the ongoing - ongoing! - Yellow Jacket movement in France.

China has been building a tightly-bound society in a way the United States has not. Without steady commerce binding us as Americans together, the country starts to unravel, a process we can see adumbrated throughout the developed world. (The failure of African and Arab national states to even get off the ground was always the writing on the wall for this model, and should never have been The United States has no coercive totalitarian backstop to endure an apocalypse, whereas China does - to a degree. Because they've been through it, and not just once. But all I'm describing is a difference in timescale, a difference of years. A CCP attempt to occupy Han China the way Han China occupies Tibet and Xinjiang, in the context of collapsed global markets and institutions, would probably look like Khmer Rouge Cambodia before long. Social credit is a much more clever and insidious mechanism, but it does require baseline stability, which it can't engender in itself. The CCP has made sacrifices over the years after all, to marketize its economy. When we're talking introducing a totalitarian economy, we're talking a dehybridization of the economy, the biggest in the world once you remember that electronic assets are not tangible but people and things are. Even assuming they have contingencies, despite and perhaps because of better technology and infrastructure the Chinese (and other) governments today arguably have less capacity to simultaneously mobilize, suppress, and sustain their people before disappearing into unmodern cascades of raw violence and warlord anarchism. To be clear, I'm saying China has developed mechanisms to endure such challenges more effectively in the short term, but of shorter duration than was generally possible a century ago. Analogously, how long could the UK or Germany sustain a WW1-tier total mobilization economy today? A century ago the most powerful states in the world could sustain a little over 4 years before reaching the brink.

(Note that I bring up those wars because they involved total mobilization of the economy, not because I'm specifically relating the above to a war scenario between the US and China. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with war.)


Fun fact (https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/14/the-state-owns-76-of-norways-non-home-wealth/): In 1978 the Chinese government owned almost 70% of all national wealth. Today it's around 30%.

[Furunculus]

Delightful as this is, can we make it relevant to the EU's future?

[Fragony]

Does it have one, the EU overhead is going to be in shambles, Europese as a continent Will be Just fine

[Pannonian]

Delightful as this is, can we make it relevant to the EU's future?

Those charts, the study, or the data? If the methodology is fundamentally dodgy, then how is it irrelevant? This is the fundamental basis of Brexit. Start with false assumptions to build a false foundation. Then build on those false assumptions and false foundations with yet more lies and deception.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker and read the Commons report yet? I've given your stuff a go. You've not reciprocated. Unlike your study, which uses football analytics methodology in a way not meant for use (football scouts around the world would shudder at your argument), Mr Trucker's account is an actual expert source in their specialist field, and is recognised by the government as such.

[Furunculus]

nice segway.

but as you know:
1. I was referring to chinese/american hegemony
2. You have yet to demonstrate that the methodology of the HJS paper is problematic. That you assert it to be so is inadequate.
3. Re Brexit: you could make the same claim about anything in politics, and it would still be equally irrelevant to the conduct of politics, i.e. enacting ideas
4. I'm delighted the gov't has responded to the concerns of Mr Trucker, as I indicated they should and would. As you well know, I thought I had nothing particular to learn on regulatory borders from ten minutes of youtube that I had not already gleaned from 450 pages of flexcit.

this is now just regurgitating bile on your part.

[Fragony]

Is https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YhIrgcaaXS8 is this actualy true? Here we had Merkel's little children stab and cut throats but no beheadings. Because Sweden is Sweden everything that doesn't suit their disposia must be silenced, 1984+, but did this really happen

[Pannonian]

nice segway.

but as you know:
1. I was referring to chinese/american hegemony
2. You have yet to demonstrate that the methodology of the HJS paper is problematic. That you assert it to be so is inadequate.
3. Re Brexit: you could make the same claim about anything in politics, and it would still be equally irrelevant to the conduct of politics, i.e. enacting ideas
4. I'm delighted the gov't has responded to the concerns of Mr Trucker, as I indicated they should and would. As you well know, I thought I had nothing particular to learn on regulatory borders from ten minutes of youtube that I had not already gleaned from 450 pages of flexcit.

this is now just regurgitating bile on your part.

So you urge me to read the document you've linked to, but you refuse to reciprocate and listen to the testimony I linked to. Even though the latter is recognised to be a significant expert opinion in their specialist field, while I've managed to find flaws in the former even within a brief browse. Typical of Brexit. Do as I say, not as I do.

[Fragony]

Explosion in Paris, unknown who did it. No fatalities mentioned so far.

Edit, probably a stupid accident, gasleak

[Fragony]

Nice, one of the childless mutti's little children stab a pregnant woman, unborn child dead. So welcome wir schaffen das. When is Merkel going to be tarred and feathered

[Husar]

Nice, one of the childless mutti's little children stab a pregnant woman, unborn child dead. So welcome wir schaffen das. When is Merkel going to be tarred and feathered

Certainly not before you provide any sources for the things you're talking about. ~;p

[Fragony]

Certainly not before you provide any sources for the things you're talking about. ~;p

Is certain An Afghanistan Guy did it, woman was Polish. You can easily look it up yourself

[Beskar]

Found it on Breitbart. For some reason, the source doesn't surprise me. :laugh4:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/14/germany-afghan-stabs-pregnant-woman/


A pregnant Polish woman suffered life-threatening injuries and lost her unborn baby in a knife attack by an Afghan migrant at a hospital in Germany.
Police said an argument broke out at St. Marienwörth Hospital in Bad Kreuznach, west Germany, at around 6 p.m. on Friday, after which the 25-year-old victim was stabbed several times in the stomach.

The woman’s condition stabilised following emergency surgery but her baby died a short time after the operation, according to local media, which reported that the perpetrator surrendered himself to police shortly after the attack, after initially having fled the hospital.

On Saturday the suspect, a 25-year-old Afghan, was charged with murder, aggravated assault, and the unlawful termination of a pregnancy. He will remain in custody while police and the local public prosecutor’s office investigate the circumstances of the attack.

With the victim not yet in a condition to speak to investigators, and the suspect having so far refused to comment on the assault, police have said the motive remains unclear.

Speaking out after the attack, Alternative for Germany (AfD) MP Petr Bystron remarked that “illegal immigration is not mercy — it is murder”, noting that Germany has suffered rising crime rates since Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the country’s border to well over a million migrants in 2015.

Linking German problems with illegal immigration to the ones highlighted by President Donald Trump in North America, the populist MP told U.S. news outlet Gateway Pundit: “The simple fact is: if you are willing to break a country’s laws to get in, you are probably willing to break them again once you are in – with horrible, tragic consequences for the most vulnerable members of society.”

Globalist international media outlets, which overwhelmingly stood in praise of Mrs Merkel as she invited people from the Global South to live off taxpayers in her homeland, have attempted to downplay reports that Germany has seen an uptick in violence since receiving an unprecedented influx of migrants, claiming that crime on the whole has gone down since 2015.

But a BBC ‘fact check’ last year, which took issue with an AfD MP’s claim that there were more than 447 killings by illegal immigrants in Germany in 2017, had to admit that the migrant demographic was heavily overrepresented amongst perpetrators of the most serious crimes.

Despite people classified as “asylum applicants or civil war refugees or illegal immigrants” making up just 2 per cent of Germany’s population as a whole, this group comprised 8.5 percent of all criminal suspects in 2017, including 10.4 percent of murder suspects and 11.9 percent of sexual offence suspects, the British public broadcaster conceded.

From the story, there are a few things which stood out:
- The perpetrator went to the Hospital with the victim.
- The perpetrator later turned themselves in to the police, after initially fleeing.

First thing this suggests is that the story is not "wild afghan refugee stabs pregnant woman just because he is an evil immigrant". There is the suggestion that the perpetrator knew the victim, since apparently they went to the hospital with her. The individual also turned himself into the police, if they are evil immigrant, wouldn't they try to flee/not be caught?

Perhaps this is a very tragic tale where the unborn child is the perpetrator's (or not) ? Perhaps there was an argument and something went horribly wrong? Clearly the perpetrator had some issues, maybe a twisted form of honour killing? Either way, this is not as simple as implied "immigrants are evil and stab pregnant women for fun".

[Fragony]

Sounds like there is more to it and should have shut up

[Husar]

Is certain An Afghanistan Guy did it, woman was Polish. You can easily look it up yourself

If you weant me to accept your point, it's a terrible idea to try and make me work for it...
Besides, I may not even challenge your point, but want to read the whole story.

I did find it based on the information provided by Beskar. Apparently the two were a couple and he specifically came to visit her in that hospital. Doesn't sound like random violence, but a relationship conflict. Though that is obviously not a way to solve those. He also surrendered to police by himself shortly afterwards.

It sounds a lot like he freaked out after they talked, maybe she told him the baby is from someone else because she cheated on him, or something like that. Don't get me wrong, what he did is terrible and he should be punished. It just doesn't look like the "random islamist terrorist murderer from abroad"-story that many almost like to see because it fits their xenophobic agenda.

edit: Sorry for repeating some things Beskar already said, I looked for the source right away and didn't see the conclusions below. :bow:

[Fragony]

You are right this was nog random violence. He should be sent away though

[Pannonian]

Here's (https://statsbomb.com/2019/01/loan-watch-how-are-premier-league-prospects-across-europe-faring/) an example of football radars used in analysis. It can easily show when players are an order of magnitude greater or lesser than another. But where there isn't such a great difference, all it does is show that players are of different styles, assuming they play in roughly the same area. And as one of the players' analyses shows, it also depends on the context, in this case the style of the team they're playing in (if the loaning team hasn't been picking the right team for their loanee to go to). And even after all that, it's just a precursor to the final, decisive judgement, which is made by an expert in the field, ie. a football scout. That report that Furunculus links to as an illustration of his beliefs misses all this.

[Furunculus]

whining and bile, still! don't you ever get bored of living on repeat?

[Pannonian]

whining and bile, still! don't you ever get bored of living on repeat?

I was willing to change my position. From not reading the report you posted, I read it and commented on it. Are you going to reciprocate and listen to Mr Trucker's testimony, which is something the government considered worthwhile enough to base policy on? Or are you only up for giving demands, without ever doing anything in return?

[Furunculus]

i will. i will do it for you. :yes:

[edyzmedieval]

One thing that will have a reverberating impact on the EU - the arrest of Carlos Ghosn.

Since Renault & Nissan were very well connected and the EU & Japan made a free trade zone, this will impact both the overall exports (plus & minus) but also things like Nissan not going to produce cars in the UK any more.

[Furunculus]

but also things like Nissan not going to produce cars in the UK any more.

come again?

Of far more signaificance:

“The unanimity rule in taxation increasingly appears as politically anachronistic, legally problematic and economically counterproductive. I am fully aware of how sensitive an issue this is, but that cannot mean that the discussion is off limits. So let’s begin this debate today.”

The words of the EU discussing the end of the national veto on tax policy.

[edyzmedieval]

I'm banking on the fact that UK won't leave EU - the cost is far too high, it's a total disaster so far.

Also, bit of a mistake on my part, Nissan won't produce a certain model any more - they are rethinking their operations.

Here -> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/03/nissan-confirms-new-x-trail-will-not-be-built-in-sunderland

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/brexit-nissan-cancels-plans-trail-suv-uk-190203142818781.html

[Pannonian]

I'm banking on the fact that UK won't leave EU - the cost is far too high, it's a total disaster so far.

Also, bit of a mistake on my part, Nissan won't produce a certain model any more - they are rethinking their operations.

Here -> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/03/nissan-confirms-new-x-trail-will-not-be-built-in-sunderland

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/brexit-nissan-cancels-plans-trail-suv-uk-190203142818781.html

They won't immediately shut down all operations, as there is still physical and human infrastructure here for existing models. . What they will do is what they've done: move production of new models to elsewhere. As existing models come to the end of their life, there won't be any replacements, as all the new infrastructure has been set up in places where they won't suffer from the UK's post-Brexit situation. May had a meeting with Nissan execs shortly after she took power, assuring them that the UK would be a good place to continue business in. They've obviously weighed her words against her actions, and found her words to be worthless.

[Pannonian]

Gammon says the UK is at war with the EU.

[rory_20_uk]

They won't immediately shut down all operations, as there is still physical and human infrastructure here for existing models. . What they will do is what they've done: move production of new models to elsewhere. As existing models come to the end of their life, there won't be any replacements, as all the new infrastructure has been set up in places where they won't suffer from the UK's post-Brexit situation. May had a meeting with Nissan execs shortly after she took power, assuring them that the UK would be a good place to continue business in. They've obviously weighed her words against her actions, and found her words to be worthless.

Or perhaps it has something to do with the massive drop in Diesel sales in Europe due to the scandal in Germany due to extremely lax QC. Or perhaps the new free trade agreement with the UK - this means they will get tariff-free on cars even if they're made in Japan (one of the inevitable casualties of free trade agreements which are better overall but do create some loosers).

But no. Nissan doesn't like May and therefore is moving. If they'd liked the PM they'd be building a whole new town here since personal relationships really matter that much...

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Or perhaps it has something to do with the massive drop in Diesel sales in Europe due to the scandal in Germany due to extremely lax QC. Or perhaps the new free trade agreement with the UK - this means they will get tariff-free on cars even if they're made in Japan (one of the inevitable casualties of free trade agreements which are better overall but do create some loosers).

But no. Nissan doesn't like May and therefore is moving. If they'd liked the PM they'd be building a whole new town here since personal relationships really matter that much...

~:smoking:

What new free trade agreement with the UK are you talking about? Have you been smoking Liam Fox's stash again? The new free trade agreement Japan recently signed that we benefit from was with the EU, which we are currently a member of. We will stop benefiting from that agreement on 1st April, courtesy of your vote.

Brexit: Government didn't offer Nissan money to stay in UK (20th January 2017) (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-nissan-letter-no-money-davos-theresa-may-a7538391.html)
Nissan was offered secret state aid to cope with Brexit, minister concedes (4th February 2019) (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/government-letter-to-nissan-reveals-brexit-promise-to-carmarkers)

Lies and deception - that's the Brexit way.

[rory_20_uk]

What new free trade agreement with the UK are you talking about? Have you been smoking Liam Fox's stash again? The new free trade agreement Japan recently signed that we benefit from was with the EU, which we are currently a member of. We will stop benefiting from that agreement on 1st April, courtesy of your vote.

Brexit: Government didn't offer Nissan money to stay in UK (20th January 2017) (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-nissan-letter-no-money-davos-theresa-may-a7538391.html)
Nissan was offered secret state aid to cope with Brexit, minister concedes (4th February 2019) (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/government-letter-to-nissan-reveals-brexit-promise-to-carmarkers)

Lies and deception - that's the Brexit way.

Politicians lying??!? Say it ain't so! Something that only done by the Brexiteers, eh?

Apologies, the EU, not the UK.

My mistake aside... you appear to ignore both the decrease of diesel and that the agreement reduces tarrifs... so Nissan might as well build them in Japan. So this is in fact due to the EU/Japan agreement.

~:smoking:

[edyzmedieval]

https://www.cbronline.com/news/european-commission-mob

Well that did not end well when you have to negotiate a deal with the people. The EU called the protesters on copyright issues a "mob".

[Furunculus]

So, fours dsys later and i can no longer contain my amazement that the topic isn't fizzing with reaction to Jupiters encyclical on the future of the eu.

does nobody care?

[Husar]

So, fours dsys later and i can no longer contain my amazement that the topic isn't fizzing with reaction to Jupiters encyclical on the future of the eu.

does nobody care?

I have some questions:

1. Who are the Jupiters?
2. Is encyclical an adjective, a verb or a noun and how is it related to cycling or cycles?
3. Why can I not find any recent articles about the EU when I use your words as search terms? All I get are space missions, completely unrelated stuff and one article about Macron not being a Jupiter from 2017.

[Gilrandir]

I have some questions:

1. Who are the Jupiters?
2. Is encyclical an adjective, a verb or a noun and how is it related to cycling or cycles?
3. Why can I not find any recent articles about the EU when I use your words as search terms? All I get are space missions, completely unrelated stuff and one article about Macron not being a Jupiter from 2017.

If you can't find anything then nobody does care.

[Pannonian]

I have some questions:

1. Who are the Jupiters?
2. Is encyclical an adjective, a verb or a noun and how is it related to cycling or cycles?
3. Why can I not find any recent articles about the EU when I use your words as search terms? All I get are space missions, completely unrelated stuff and one article about Macron not being a Jupiter from 2017.

Niche terms are usually understood by insiders in Facebook (or other social media) circles. The Leave campaign used phishing to get user data, which they then used for targeted ad campaigns on Facebook primarily disseminating untruths. When a Parliamentary committee asked the director of this campaign for information on what they'd been telling people, he refused. The committee published some of these ads, but not having been in these circles, they do not have a full list.

Jupiter is probably a nickname used by said circle to refer to some individual or other. Encyclical might be their term for a circular letter; rarely seen in the normal world, but when the leader in one of these circles uses it, it becomes current among the members of that circle. So for Furunculus, those words immediately mean something to him, but to us outsiders, these words might as well be gobbledigook.

[Furunculus]

Conspiracy theory stuff is fake news.

No need for a conspiracy theory when the truth will do just nicely.

Everyone in france (and informed people elsewhere), is aware that Jupiter=Macron:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=macron+jupiter
One 188k results

Re: encyclical - i do you all the credit of being educated chaps, so i consider it clearly to be understood:
That the word combined with Macrons divine self-image, references his attempt to speak to europe about the EU.

But, i'm guessing his grand vision doesn't enthuse anyone...

[Husar]

Re: encyclical - i do you all the credit of being educated chaps, so i consider it clearly to be understood:
That the word combined with Macrons divine self-image, references his attempt to speak to europe about the EU.

I kinda figured the Macron thing from the one article I found about him and had encyclical figured out with a simple search before I even sent the last post. But since I don't want to have to search several times whenebver I try to answer you, it can't hurt to use somewhat plainer language. Being educated doesn't mean one is a walking dictionary of everything. It simply saves everybody some time. I also try not to ask you about German politics using the local language, terms and jokes you don't know. ~;p

I assume you mean this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/04/eu-must-learn-from-brexit-and-reform-says-emmanuel-macron

(see, providing a simple link to a source that you and I can trust gives a much better basis for debate than cryptic slang terms that you then disguise as intellectual talk ~;) )

It sounds a lot less neoliberal than I expected from Macron, but at the same time it seems vague enough that a lot could happen in practice.
EU reform is not a bad idea though, if Brexit leads to that, then thank you for not ruining it for us any longer.

[Montmorency]

It sounds a lot less neoliberal than I expected from Macron, but at the same time it seems vague enough that a lot could happen in practice.
EU reform is not a bad idea though, if Brexit leads to that, then thank you for not ruining it for us any longer.

Yanis Varoufakis (https://mondediplo.com/2019/03/12europe-diem) around the same time on EU reform (European New Deal), and the European Spring coalition running in the EU parliamentary elections this May:


The 2008 global financial crisis — the modern 1929 crash — set off a vicious chain reaction across Europe. By 2010 it had irreparably damaged the foundations of the eurozone, causing the establishment to bend its own rules and commit crimes against logic in order to bail out its banker friends. By 2013 the neoliberal ideology that had legitimised the EU’s oligarchic technocracy had plunged millions into misery, even through the enactment of official policies: socialism for the financiers and harsh austerity for the many. These policies were practised as much by conservatives as by social democrats. By 2015 the surrender of the Syriza government in Greece had divided and disheartened the left, robbing Europe of the short-lived hope that progressives rising up in the streets would alter the balance of power.

Since then, anger has combined with hopelessness to create a vacuum, soon filled by the organised misanthropy of a Nationalist International triumphing across Europe, and making Donald Trump a very happy man. Against the background of an establishment that increasingly resembles the unhappy Weimar Republic, and of the recalcitrant racists produced by the crisis’s deflationary forces, the European Union is fragmenting. With Angela Merkel on the way out and Emmanuel Macron’s European agenda dead on arrival, the European election in May could prove the last chance progressives have to make a difference at a pan-European level.


Something very odd has been happening in recent years: many on the left have come to view open borders as bad for the working class. Jean-Luc Mélenchon of La France Insoumise has said several times, ‘I’ve never been in favour of freedom of arrival.’ In a speech on posted workers at the European Parliament in July 2016, he said migrants were ‘taking the bread out of the mouths’ of French workers. He has since regretted this statement, though his views on the impact of migration on French wages have not changed.

This is not new. In 1907 Morris Hillquit, the founder of the Socialist Party of America, tabled a resolution to end ‘the wilful importation of cheap foreign labour’, arguing that migrants were a ‘pool of unconscious strike-breakers’. What is new is that much of the left seems to have forgotten Lenin’s fierce reaction in 1915 to Hillquit’s call for curbs on migration: ‘We think that one cannot be internationalist and be at the same time in favour of such restrictions … Such socialists are in reality jingoists.’

Lenin had provided the context in an article on 29 October 1913:

‘There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations … capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world … breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries.’

DiEM25 adopts Lenin’s apt analysis: walls that curb the free movement of people and goods are a reactionary response to capitalism. The socialist response is to bring down the walls and allow capitalism to undermine itself, while we organise transnational resistance to capitalist exploitation everywhere. It is not migrants who steal the jobs of native workers but governmental austerity, which is part of the class war waged on behalf of the domestic bourgeoisie.

This is why we are adamant that xenophobia-lite must never be allowed to contaminate our agenda. As my friend Slavoj Žižek says, a leftist nationalism is a cruel and inane response to National Socialism. So DiEM25’s position on newcomers is that we refuse to differentiate between migrants and refugees. And we call upon Europe to #LetThemIn.


Comrades from across Europe call us utopian and say the EU cannot be reformed. They may well be right. So for argument’s sake, let us agree that the EU is unreformable. Is progressives’ best response to adopt Lexit (the leftwing campaign for the controlled disintegration of the EU)? Some of my happiest memories are of addressing large audiences in Germany in 2015, soon after Syriza’s surrender to Angela Merkel and the troika (the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and European Commission). They were desperate to convey that what had been done to Greece had not been done in their name, the name of the German people. I remember how relieved they were on hearing the DiEM25 call to form one transnational movement, to unify, to fight together, to seize control of EU institutions — European Investment Bank (EIB), ECB etc — and re-deploy them in the interests of all Europeans.

I still feel the elation of our German comrades on hearing our idea to run Greek candidates in Germany and German candidates in Greece to signify that our movement is transnational, that it intends to take over the neoliberal order’s institutions everywhere and at once, not to wreck them but to make them work for the many, in Brussels, Berlin, Athens, Paris. Everywhere.

Compare this with how they would have felt had I told them that the EU was unreformable and must be disbanded; that Greeks must fall back to their nation state and try to build socialism there, while Germans did the same. Once we succeeded, our delegations could meet to discuss collaboration between our newly sovereign progressive states. Our German comrades would undoubtedly have felt deflated, and returned home depressed, thinking that they would have to face the German establishment as Germans, not as part of a transnational movement.

If I am right, it does not matter whether the EU is or isn’t reformable, but it does matter that we put forward concrete proposals on what we would do with EU institutions. Not utopian proposals but complete descriptions of what we would do this week, next month, in the next year, under the existing rules and with the existing instruments — how we would reassign the role of the awful European Stability Mechanism, reorient the ECB’s quantitative easing, and finance immediately, and without new taxes, a green transition and campaign against poverty.

Why such a detailed agenda? To show voters that there is an alternative, even within the rules designed by the establishment to further the interests of the top 1%. No one expects the EU institutions to adopt our proposals, least of all us. All we want is for voters to see what could be done, instead of what is being done, so that they can see through the establishment without turning to the xenophobic right. This is the only way the left can escape its confines and build abroad progressive coalition.


DiEM25’s New Deal for Europe aims at this; it shows how the lives of the majority of people can be improved in the short run under existing rules and with the current institutions. And it maps out the transformation of these institutions while charting a constitutional assembly process that will, in the longer run, lead to a democratic European constitution to replace all existing treaties.


Everyone talks about the importance of the green transition. What they do not say is where the money will come from and who will plan it. Our answer is clear: Europe needs to invest €2 trillion between 2019 and 2023 in green technologies, energy etc. We propose that the EIB issues an additional volume of its bonds, €500bn annually for four years, and that the ECB announces that, if their value drops, it will purchase these on the secondary bond market. With that announcement, and the glut of savings around the world, the ECB will not have to spend a single euro, as the EIB bonds will sell out. A new European Green Transition Agency, modelled on the Marshall Plan’s Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (the OECD’s precursor), will channel those funds to green projects across the continent.

This proposal requires no new taxes, builds on an existing European bond and is fully legal under existing rules. The same applies to our other proposals, such as our Anti-Poverty Fund: we propose that the billions of profits of the European System of Central Banks (from assets purchased under the ECB’s quantitative easing or from the Target2 payment system) be used to provide every European under the poverty line with food, shelter and energy security.

Another example is our plan to restructure the eurozone’s public debt: the ECB mediates between states and money markets to reduce their total debt burden, but without printing money or making Germany pay for, or guarantee, the public debt of the more indebted countries.

As these demonstrate, our New Deal combines technically competent plans, implementable under the EU’s existing framework, with a radical departure from austerity and the troika’s bailout logic. And it goes further by tabling new institutions that prepare for a post-capitalist European future.

A plan for post-capitalism proposes to partly socialise capital and the returns from automation: big business corporations’ right to operate in the EU will be conditional on transferring a percentage of their shares to a new European Equity Fund. The dividends from these will then fund a Universal Basic Dividend (UBD) to be paid to each European citizen independently of other welfare payments or unemployment insurance.

Our proposals for reforming the euro are another radical change. Before getting bogged down in changing the charter of the ECB, we plan to create a public digital-payments platform in every eurozone country. Using their national tax office’s existing digital platform, taxpayers would have the opportunity to purchase digital tax credits, which they can use to pay one another or to pay future taxes at a substantial discount. These credits would be denominated in euros but transferable only between taxpayers within a single country, so would be impervious to sudden capital flight.

Governments would be able to create a limited number of these fiscal euros, to be given to citizens in need or used for the funding of public projects; fiscal euros would allow stressed governments to stimulate demand, lessen the tax burden, and ultimately reduce the crushing power of the ECB and costs of exiting the euro (or of the euro’s disintegration). In the long term, public digital-payment platforms would form a managed system of country-specific euros that work like an International Clearing Union, a modern version of John Maynard Keynes’s 1944 vision for the Bretton Woods system, which sadly failed to materialise.


Our New Deal for Europe is a comprehensive plan for smartly re-deploying existing institutions in the interests of the majority, planning for a radical, post-capitalist green future, and preparing to pick up the pieces if the EU collapses.


Well-meaning leftwing friends ask, ‘Why doesn’t DiEM25 join up with Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise or Sahra Wagenknecht and Oskar Lafontaine’s Aufstehen movement in Germany? How can the left make a difference if you fail to unite?’ The reason is simple: our duty is to create unity on a foundation of radical, rational and internationalist humanism. This means a common agenda for all Europeans and a radical policy of an Open Europe that recognises borders as scars on the planet and newcomers as welcome. Nothing less will do.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A

[spmetla]

Bit of a necro-thread rival but this was the most appropriate place:

Germany's goal of a European federal state proves elusive
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-goal-of-a-european-federal-state-proves-elusive/a-60539427


It's a vision that is even included in the deal underpinning Germany's new coalition government. But the dream of a European superstate has lost much of its luster and left Germany looking increasingly isolated.
Germany's new three-party coalition government of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and Free Democrats (FDP) shares the goal of turning the EU into a European federal state. But viewed against the backdrop of current developments, it is a hugely ambitious project and no other European government has the same zeal for integration as that expressed in the ruling coalition's governing deal.

Which is perhaps surprising given the bloc's long tradition of fervent visions for its future. Back in 1957, the Treaty of Rome spoke of the "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe." And in 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon echoed that striving for "ever closer union." Jacques Delors, president of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995, believed that Europe was like a bicycle moving ever closer towards further integration: "Stop pedaling and the bike will fall over!" These days, that kind of almost unquestioning commitment to a trans-European federation is rare. Indeed, the movement that came to be known as Brexit left the bike struggling to stay on track, in the biggest blow yet to a shared European future.
Turning away from the EU vision
The UK had long been seen as particularly skeptical when it came to Europe. But on a visit to Berlin in March 2018, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte appeared to want to demonstrate that his euroskeptic credentials were second to none: "There has been this narrative that there is this inevitability of closer cooperation in a European federal state. This horrible language about 'ever closer Union' I don't like." Rutte rejected what he dismissed as the "romance" of an ever-closer European Union."

Even Donald Tusk, then president of the European Council, was quoted as saying at a European Business Summit in 2016: "Forcing lyrical and in fact naïve Euro-enthusiastic visions of total integration, regardless of the obvious good will of their proponents, is not a suitable answer to our problems. Firstly because it is simply not possible, and secondly because — paradoxically — promoting them only leads to the strengthening of Euroskeptic moods, not only in the UK."
And it was quite a setback when in 2005 the Netherlands and France — both viewed as staunchly pro-European nations — voted in referendums to reject a European constitution. The clear message was: the vision of ever closer unity did not represent the will of the majority of the people in these countries. A number of governments with far-right populist leadership or participation, for example in Hungary and Poland, also rejected further integration.

Federal Europe: 'Nobody really wants it'
So is it blind or brave for the coalition government in Berlin to ignore the current climate of cynicism and continue to push for a European federal state? Political scientist Johannes Varwick from the University of Halle told DW that it's not worth investing in the federal vision: "If the coalition parties really believe in this, then they will find themselves being caught up by the reality that is Europe. Fact is: nobody in Europe really wants it."

It was above all the Brexit vote that persuaded lawyer Daniel Röder to found the pro-European citizens' initiative Pulse of Europe. The aim was to come up with new ideas to galvanize Europe — and not just the politicians and bureaucrats, but also ordinary European citizens. Still, Röder admits he was "surprised" to see the goal of a federal Europe suddenly popping up in the coalition agreement.
He is one person who certainly needs no additional encouragement to push for further integration. "When you look at the huge challenges that we're facing: climate change, integration, pandemics, the conflict with Russia and so on — well, you're not going to achieve much as an individual nation-state. And we can't leave everything up to China or the US, so we need further European integration." However, he adds: a European federal state "isn't necessarily the goal."

European or national solutions: Keep your options open
Just how much integration is ideal varies from issue to issue. In some areas, the EU has gone a long way towards becoming a federal state. Take the development of the single market, or joining forces in the export sector. In other areas, however, countries have been reluctant to give up on their sovereignty and instead focus on shared policy initiatives.
The battle against the COVID pandemic has only underlined this tendency. Health policies are the prerogative of the individual countries — a reality that is welcomed by some and questioned by others. On the other hand, the EU did manage to pull together to come up with a huge economic recovery package designed to ease financial hardship caused by the pandemic.

The fund also illustrates how contentious joint projects can be. When it comes to money, the big question will inevitably remain: Who pays and who profits? For the more prosperous EU member states, the constant concern is that less well-off countries will try to draw them into some kind of arrangement that involves mutualized spending and mutualized borrowing.

The chicken or the egg
Johannes Varwick says that it might be easy to dismiss the very notion of further integration. Still, he cautions: "People should think twice before abandoning such a vision." Daniel Röder from Pulse of Europe, on the other hand, says that for him it's not about visions, but realizing that if you don't move forward, you're likely to end up going backwards.

Röder says that he sees the EU in the current stage of its development as a "fragile and often ineffective construction. Only when it is capable of assuming a more credible and effective role in the interaction of global powers, will it have more clout and greater acceptance, both internally and externally." It's a chicken and egg thing, Röder concludes ominously: "No acceptance means no advancement; no advancement means no acceptance. It's a dilemma that we must resolve — otherwise, I fear the worst for this union."


I think that after the eurozone financial crisis, the migration crisis, brexit, and the current EU/NATO dithering in regards to Russia sorta show that a European state will not happen within the near future. From my outside view it looks like most people are happy with the economic union and its benefits but extremely wary of further political union. Perhaps in a few decades but peoples national identities are still far stronger than a European one. Kind of a Holy Roman Empire situation, when unified in action it is impressive but usually ineffective due to squabbling.

[Montmorency]

Bit of a necro-thread rival but this was the most appropriate place:

Germany's goal of a European federal state proves elusive
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-goal-of-a-european-federal-state-proves-elusive/a-60539427



I think that after the eurozone financial crisis, the migration crisis, brexit, and the current EU/NATO dithering in regards to Russia sorta show that a European state will not happen within the near future. From my outside view it looks like most people are happy with the economic union and its benefits but extremely wary of further political union. Perhaps in a few decades but peoples national identities are still far stronger than a European one. Kind of a Holy Roman Empire situation, when unified in action it is impressive but usually ineffective due to squabbling.

We also have to note that


"No acceptance means no advancement; no advancement means no acceptance. It's a dilemma that we must resolve — otherwise, I fear the worst for this union."

applies to the sovereign constituents of the EU. The countries, and seemingly the peoples, of Europe basically can't envision any kind of future for themselves separately. How many perceive anything to hope or strive for beyond watching the slow train wreck of the 21st century pass through? People have their eyes to their feet in national terms, so how would they coalesce together around a supernational aspiration?

The accelerationist premises, if not the arguments, are probably applicable: woe begets violence, the great leveler.

Too few people have the commitment or confidence in us working to solve big problems.

[Furunculus]

From my outside view it looks like most people are happy with the economic union and its benefits but extremely wary of further political union.

In the good times, yes. When there are no 'consequences' to doing nice economicky things that make us feel all EUropean.
But these are not the good times, and we expect 'the state' to step in and do extraordinary things to preserve our declining welfare.

Germany benefits from the single currency by having its natural foriegn exchange rate suppressed by the wider currency region. Its goods are cheaper, but by the same token it raises the exchange rate for the wider currency region. Making their goods more expensive.

And this happens whilst engaging in none of the normal solidarity acts that nation states engage in to normalise wealth potential within the 'regions':

Federal US taxation is ~25% of GDP and the variation in spending levels between rich and poor states is ~5% of GDP, so a variation of roughly 20% of federal spending.

How big a budget would the EU need to be able to slosh around 5% of combined GDP into the poor regions (bearing in mind the current budget is only 1% (and heavily constrained by CAP payments)?

The other point is that americans accept this, they are all american, whereas we are rapidly finding out just how german the germans are, and finnish the finns are, when it comes to firehosing cash at nations they consider to be essentially delinquent! In the UK this ‘sloshing’ occurs in the form of:

a) National pay-bargaining which benefits poorer regions (teachers, nurses, etc)

b) National social benefits more generous than poorer regions could afford alone (eg.housing benefit in glasgow)

c) Targeted regional development grants/discounts to encourage business growth (objective 1 EU/WEFO funds)

d) Additional infrastructure spending to support the local economy (the mainland-skye bridge)

e) Operating national services hubs from depressed regions to boost wages (DVLA in swansea, etc)

Unless Germany recognises the ‘familial’ relationship, and the obligation that goes along with that, then it needs to leave for the good of its neighbours.

This principal applies equally to the netherlands and finland, but since it is Germany that is the driving economic power for the euro’s sake the answer must be ‘right’.

One mechanism to equalise this foriegn exchange disparity would be eurobonds. To compensate for a higher than natural foriegn exchange rate the wider currency union would borrow collectively, and thus lower their borrowing costs on the back of Germany’s strength.

The quid-pro-quo would be that Germany’s cost of borrowing would rise, as it too would be borrowing through the wider currency union and would see its strength diluted in consequence.

What is happening right now is commonly termed “wanting to have your cake, and eat it too“, an attitude considered ugly by weaker members of the polity who consider that cake to be shared treat.

An economic union cannot exist long term without a political union from which to draw legitimacy from for the acts that it must take in regulating society.

[spmetla]

EU's border-free Schengen zone needs overhaul, political leadership - Macron
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-border-free-schengen-zone-needs-overhaul-political-leadership-macron-2022-02-02/

The European Union's border-free Schengen area should be managed by regular ministerial meetings, just like the euro zone, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Wednesday, adding that this could start as early as next month.

National security concerns, waves of migration and, most recently, the coronavirus pandemic have led to the re-emergence of border controls in the Schengen zone and much criticism of how it functions, eroding what had been hailed as a milestone achievement in Europe's post-World War Two integration.

Speaking to EU justice and interior ministers, Macron said what he dubbed the "Schengen Council" would evaluate how the border-free area was working but would also take joint decisions and facilitate coordination in times of crisis.

"This Council can become the face of a strong, protective Europe that is comfortable with controlling its borders and therefore its destiny," he said in the northern French town of Tourcoing. He said its inaugural meeting could take place when the EU's justice and home affairs ministers next gather, on March 3.


"We must reform Schengen," he said. "There can be no freedom of movement if we do not control our external borders."

France has also proposed an emergency response mechanism that could be triggered when the bloc's external borders are under threat.

Wonder how far along he'll get in his proposals, Frontex certainly needs more help, the countries that are the first stop for refugees and migrants certainly need far more help in housing, transport, and processing. The power dynamics that Morocco, Belarus, and Turkey have used with migrants certainly has shown that the EU is lacking in a unified front and most of the burden is on the bordering nations.

Something needs to be done to save the Schengen zone's positive benefits while limiting some of these negative outcomes and of course to save the lives of the migrants being used as pawns for power politics.

[Furunculus]

Re: Schenghen and Frontex

They're in a difficult position, as if they aren't willing to be as aggressive as Local enforcement (see: Poland), then domestic politics in frontline states will see the EU as enabling mass migration, and Frontex will be targetted over and above Local enforcement by rogue states like Belarus.

If they aren't deemed credible, then frontline states will marginalise Frontex to safe bureaucratic roles behind the border, at which point is the involvement of the EU a net-benefit to frontline states?

-------------------

Separately:

ECB keeps interest rate at -0.5% and quantitative easing at £20b/month despite inflation running at over 5%:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/02/shock-surge-eurozone-inflation-piles-pressure-christine-lagarde/


Consumer prices soared by 5.1pc up in the year to January, up from 5pc in December, according to Eurostat’s first estimates. Economists had forecast a slowdown to 4.4pc.

The rise was spurred by higher food and energy costs, which left the rate of inflation more than two-and-a-half times higher than the ECB’s 2pc target. Energy prices were 28.6pc higher, while unprocessed food cost 5.2pc more.

With those volatile components stripped out, core inflation stood at 2.3pc, down from 2.6pc the previous month. Officials watch this measure as a better indicator of medium-term inflation.

They provide a difficult backdrop as officials prepare to meet in Frankfurt on Thusday to decide on the course of eurozone monetary policy. Ms Lagarde has repeatedly said that high levels of price growth will fade as energy costs come back to normal and global supply chain issues fade.

The ECB has laid out plans to move less speedily than the Bank of England and US Federal Reserve to cut back on its ultra-loose monetary policy stance.
Advertisement

In December, it set out an aim to cut asset purchases to €20bn a month by October, but members of its governing council have said they do not expect to increase rates this year.

Markets think differently, however, and are pricing in three ECB rate rises in 2022, two fewer than the five increases expected from Threadneedle Street and the Fed. Increasing interest rates raises the cost of borrowing, with the aim of curbing inflation.

This has to be causing political friction in Germany and the Netherlands. How will that manifest?
My guess would be the steady erosion of trust in the Gov'ts that notionally were not elected on a cost-of-living manifesto (fair enough you might say, as they don't control monetary policy, but they still carry the can for the consequences).

[Montmorency]

The alternative to liquidity support is, of course, is a short-to-medium term decrease in living standards.


Bank of England: Households must brace themselves for the biggest annual fall in their standard of living since comparable records began (https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/bank-of-england-households-must-brace-themselves-for-the-biggest-annual-fall-in-their-standard-of-living-since-comparable-records-began-310606/)

The Bank of England has raised interest rates to 0.5 per cent and signalled more hikes are on the way as it warned rocketing inflation will see the worst hit to household income for at least 32 years.

The Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) voted 5-4 to raise rates from 0.25 per cent to 0.5 per cent – marking the first back-to-back rise since 2004, coming after a quarter point increase at its last meeting in December.

In a gloomy prediction for under-pressure households, the Bank said this will see disposable incomes fall by around 2 per cent – the worst impact since Bank records began in 1990.

Ofgem’s 54 per cent energy price cap increase to around £1,971 in April is the driving force behind the inflation forecast hike, with the Bank predicting around another 10 per cent rise in the cap this October.

But its forecasts do not take into account the Chancellor’s package of measures announced on Thursday, offering £350 support for the majority of UK households.

But the Bank cooled financial market forecasts of a flurry of rate rises in 2022.

It predicts that inflation will undershoot its 2 per cent target in the medium term if rates rise to 1.5 per cent by the middle of 2023, as financial markets expect, signalling it will take a more cautious approach.

However, it gave a sobering alert on the impact of rising inflation on consumers and the wider economy.

The Bank said sharp rises in energy prices and the cost of goods amid supply chain pressures will weigh on spending and growth.

“This is something monetary policy is unable to prevent,” it cautioned.

The Bank downgraded the growth outlook to 3.75 per cent in 2022 and 1.25 per cent in 2023 from the 5 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively predicted in November.

Because so far Western governments refuse to get involved in industrial management and price controls, the most serious tool they have to reassure markets is the self-hobbling one of interest rate increases. Which in turn may have to be complemented by orthogonal fiscal support to households...

When you only use the hammer you have to strike gingerly. As you say, EU-wide policy will piss off many people regardless of its direction.

(Note also that the US is one of the only OECD countries to experience durable rises in disposable incomes during the pandemic, due to government policies.)

[spmetla]

EU vows to help prevent the possible breakup of Bosnia
https://apnews.com/article/business-united-states-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-foreign-policy-247fb6ee80e30731e82d0b45b4cfd2be

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union is ready to limit financial assistance and possibly impose sanctions in Bosnia to help prevent the possible breakup up of the ethnically divided Balkan country as the peace agreement brokered over 25 years ago unravels, the EU’s top diplomat vowed Monday.

“There is no place in Europe for a divided Bosnia and Herzegovina. And those who work in this direction are strongly wrong,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said after chairing a meeting of the bloc’s foreign ministers.

The United States last month announced new sanctions against Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik, who has for years been advocating that the Serb-run part of Bosnia should leave the rest of the country and unite with neighboring Serbia.

The U.S. accused him of “corrupt activities” that threaten to destabilize the region and undermine the U.S.-brokered Dayton Peace Accord. Dodik says he and Bosnian Serbs are being unfairly targeted and wrongly accused of corruption.

Quite frightening that with all that's going on in Ukraine that this part of the Balkans continues to have problems. The Balkans are one place that the EU experiment of supra-nationality not based on ethic/religious ties were in my mind the most promising but as these countries aren't yet part of the EU, and with this uptick in problems won't be.
I hope this can be something that the EU can take lead on with the US supporting as the war on Serbia in the 90s was US and NATO lead, not EU/ECC.

[Xantan]

Well, things have definitely changed in the past month or so, because of the war in Ukraine. Apart from the significant strengthening of core EU unity and a great coordination between states, there's also civic unity which is markedly pro-EU. (and also pro-Ukraine)

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/poles-support-ukraine-joining-eu-and-nato-as-soon-as-possible/

And there's also this, a major major change in German diplomacy and foreign policy...

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-germanys-scholz-vows-to-send-more-weapons-as-it-happened/a-61457259

https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/07german-rearmament


Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, who had not made defence policy a central part of his election campaign last September, pledged €100bn to modernise the Bundeswehr and committed to spending more than 2% of GDP on defence annually, more than NATO’s target.

[Furunculus]

Is this unity going to allow gov'ts to accept further integration?

regardless of whether macron wins, the promises he is making to counter Le-Pen make france the wheel of the franco-german axis that just fell off.

hungary and poland are busy pursuing a sovereignist agenda via obstructionism that is indifferent to 'european' sentiment.

the traditional wet european 'security' agenda is morphing into a harder defence agenda, and that is happening at the nato level.

eu inflation is at 7+ percent and yet the ECB still prints money and has negative interest rates while Germany fumes.

[Montmorency]

Can't have integration without French and German leadership, which continues to be absent or orthogonal.

[Furunculus]

Can't have integration without French and German leadership, which continues to be absent or orthogonal.

indeed. related to that subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/17/whoever-ends-up-in-elysee-palace-europeanism-is-already-on-the-way-out

[Suraknar]

This is a discussion from 2005 still going.

While I have not read all of the discussion I am curious to see if the opinions expressed by some have changed over the years.

In 2005 I may have had a different opinion of the EU and then by 2010 that opinion may have changed, especially after the events and handling of the 2008 Economical Crisis.

So there are basically two fundamental views of the EU for me, the "Happy Reality View" formed during my youth in the 80's, and the "Sad reality view" formed thereafter as the years passed and based on actual decisions and actions of the people involved with the EU governance and Bureaucracy and Policy Making.

The Happy Reality view is that of a Strong EU, no borders, between its members, a common currency, common Defense Force, several Aircraft Carriers Strong, opportunity for the people of all its members, and a celebration of its Cultural and Social Diversity.

A Multicultural Europe, a Just Europe and a Prosperous Europe for all. A sort of United States of Europe.

Which, ironically, could have included no only the eastern block countries but Russia itself come the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I really think this was a missed opportunity then which could have ensured many of the goals of that Reality and especially long lasting Peace and sovereignty of Cultures and Identities.

Then, of course the Sad Reality version of Europe happened instead.

Major players of Geopolitics ensured that the EU would never become strong and would remain divided, petty bickering about trivial issues to this day. Ensured that Russia never joins it either. And ensured that its Defense force would not evolve to be what was being planned, effectively making the EU an insignificant player in the Geopolitical board or even a non player, acting instead as the waiter for the actual players ensuring that their drinks and plates remain full and living on their Tipping.

What is the future from here you say? Not guaranteed...and maybe bleak.

Because other than the renewed aggressive actions of Russia and war on Ukraine. - which mind you I am of the opinion that, Russia was provoked in pulling the trigger, very poor ways of the world to handle the issues, while at the same time I condemn Russia for deciding to pull that trigger, failing for old and outdated trappings - causing the EU to to now have to buy its cutlery from the Customers that it serves on the Geopolitical Table.

There is another impending issue, of the Climate Change. There has been at least 40 years (since the 80's) of inaction on the issue of the Environment and Climate. The Politicians and the Financial Interests they cater to, chose to ignore the growing problem in favor of own indulgence of Greed and Lust for Power.

So, in reality the Earth has no Future the way we are still doing things and affairs are still going, let alone Europe. Catastrophe after Catastrophe the world will divide back in to tribes trying to survive, and until we are all dead, or at least most of us.

Unless, somehow, there is a collective wisdom which compels us all to see the error of our way and decide to take right action.

I like to call myself an Optimist but the world is sure falling in to pessimistic outcomes...war, suffering...lust for power...and Greed.... still. Business as usual.

[edyzmedieval]

Emmanuel Macron has won a second term as President of France.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61209765

[edyzmedieval]

https://www.politico.eu/article/mark-rutte-announce-leave-politics-netherlands-prime-minister/

Well well, it seems the Dutch government has finally collapsed and will require a significant shake-up.