Euro Area

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Admittedly, I am in the mind of a European Federation or a Strong Confederation. I would naturally prefer the first for ideological reasons, but I can accept the second for practical reasons. Either way, I don't believe in strong centralisation, I believe administration should be at the regional level. Only things that I believe should be nation/supernatural are matters such as defence.

Also believe in a "Constitution". For example, like America's, which ensures a rule of law which helps prevent abuse or "worst come" situations that people dread, and enshrine Human Rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I don't care - I want the next generation to be safe and happy, ideaology is for universities, not politics. Europe's leaders fail to understand this basic point, which is why I don't want Britain any closer to Europe than absolutely necessary.

The question you need to ask is "what makes good governance."

[rory_20_uk]

The US Constitution is something like 2 pages... the EU one over 3000. The point 'basic principles' are fine but the EU wants to control everything. We also have shared defence organisation by the way... it's called NATO. Why then do we need a European Army at the beck and call of the unelected?

To play Devil's Advocate, the brevity of some elements has led to misunderstandings.

In the USA a small group initially had a constitution and others could either join or not. The EU has a great number together and finally is trying to codify it - without the ability for those that don't like it to leave.

In the USA, the population was relatively homogenous, as a scorched earth policy was adopted to the natives and people had chosen to leave Europe because of all the baggage.

[Kralizec]

I don't care - I want the next generation to be safe and happy, ideaology is for universities, not politics. Europe's leaders fail to understand this basic point, which is why I don't want Britain any closer to Europe than absolutely necessary.

The question you need to ask is "what makes good governance."

All politics is ideology at some level.

The UK conservative party claims to reject ideology, instead preferring pragmaticism and slow gradual changes (to what end, they don't know beforehand). Which doesn't mean that they don't have an actual ideology, just that's it's not coherent and that the positions they take are not necessarily predictable.

[rory_20_uk]

Their ideology is pragmatism.

Although Labour's position could be viewed as more coherant, that is because they have traditionally chosen a monolithic approach where internal dissent was effectively crushed. THe idiology there appears to be that failing of spending money only indicates that they didn't borrow enough to spend.

[SoFarSoGood]

In the USA, the population was relatively homogenous

And in Europe?

[rory_20_uk]

And in Europe?

Clearly not. I can point you towards a decent textbook of European history for the last, oh 2,000 years if you want...

[Vladimir]

You anti-Europe types are not only racist and xenophobic, but against peace too.

[Beskar]

Europe has been rather homogeneous and getting more so. There is actually quite a strong European identity, especially with newer generations. I have travelled Europe and pretty much everyone then valued Europe and grumbled about nationalists trying to ruin a good thing.

I feel connected with Horetore, Husar, Louis, and a great many of the European posters on here.

[rory_20_uk]

You anti-Europe types are not only racist and xenophobic, but against peace too.

Such a stupid comment requires a response... Let me know if this is too complex... Nations is not the same as races. Clear? It is also possible not to want to be joined at the hip with something without having a phobia of it.

Europe has been rather homogeneous and getting more so. There is actually quite a strong European identity, especially with newer generations. I have travelled Europe and pretty much everyone then valued Europe and grumbled about nationalists trying to ruin a good thing.

I feel connected with Horetore, Husar, Louis, and a great many of the European posters on here.

Assuming you're already positive, what a shock that your selection bias tends to gravitate to those who share the same view!
Also the terms you use are so nebulous to be close to meaningless. Is the "good thing" a German Transfer Union? Probably it is in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. Is it a low currency peg to increase exports? It probably is in Germany.
I would agree that Europe is getting more homogenous, but oddly enough there are entire regions of Spain which want Independence (Xenophobes runining a good thing, clearly), some in North Italy, Scotland and possibly Wales before long.

I know, the people are wrong and they need to be led to the correct solution, which is deeper integration. Although there are some foolish people who are frankly either bigots (as referred to by dear Gordon Brown) or worse who can be safely ignored as the only views that count are the correct, enlightened ones...

[Kralizec]

Their ideology is pragmatism.

Although Labour's position could be viewed as more coherant, that is because they have traditionally chosen a monolithic approach where internal dissent was effectively crushed. THe idiology there appears to be that failing of spending money only indicates that they didn't borrow enough to spend.

Politics doesn't stop with budgetary decisions.

Gay marriage is a good example. It came as something of a surprise that Cameron embraced the idea, given his own voting record. While I would support it, many voters probably were under the assumption that the Tories are against it and would remain so. "I support gay marriage because I'm a conservative" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard in politics.

Tories can be just as unforgiving to internal dissent as Labour. Not so with the gay marriage thing or Cameron's decision not to hold an EU referendum - neither are popular with his own base, and he's not a particulary strong leader to begin with. Or at least that's my impression.

[SoFarSoGood]

There is actually quite a strong European identity, especially with newer generations.

I am European - I admit it! I love Europe, Poland, Greece, England, France alot of lovely places and good people. Doesn't make me pro EU but in fact makes me want to save Europe from the EU all the more.

You are NOT a xenophobe because you reject undemocratic union.

[InsaneApache]

Not wanting to derail the thread.

Once and for all you can't 'marry' someone of the same gender. The definition of marriage is a state of matrimony between a man and a woman.

Call it what you want but it aint marriage. Unless you're Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice.

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

[Beskar]

The EU was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19921072

[InsaneApache]

The EU was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19921072

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ore-rediculous

[Beskar]

You are NOT a xenophobe because you reject undemocratic union.

But you also reject a democratic union?

[Conradus]

Not wanting to derail the thread.

Once and for all you can't 'marry' someone of the same gender. The definition of marriage is a state of matrimony between a man and a woman.

Call it what you want but it aint marriage. Unless you're Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice.

That just depends on where you are. In Dutch 'huwelijk' is the legal relationship between two people. The translation for the word is marriage. That most countries only allow marriages between men/women doesn't change the fact that you can still call same-sex marriages a marriage if these are allowed under your own law.

(Besides even Oxford online gives me the result of "(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex."

[Vladimir]

Such a stupid comment requires a response... Let me know if this is too complex... Nations is not the same as races. Clear? It is also possible not to want to be joined at the hip with something without having a phobia of it.

Stoopid people react stoopidly to stoopid comments.

You're British, I expect better.

[drone]

The EU was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19921072

Extrapolating from some recent winners, I guess continental war is about 10 years away then.

[Kralizec]

I'm pretty sure that when the Dutch were about to introduce gay marriage people used the same argument as IA. It's a circular argument though - marriage (right now) is an instutition between a man and a woman, so we can't go to a situation where it also applies to man/man or woman/woman couples.

As IA said it's off topic though. The reason I brought it up was because Cameron wants to introduce it and in doing so probably dissapointed some Tory voters, which is what you get from a party that doesn't want to pin itself on an ideological framework. Incidentally that was off topic, too.

[Fragony]

I completely changed my opinion on it, I used to see it as hostile activism, now that it's here I am kinda proud of it. Things change and so do I.

[SoFarSoGood]

But you also reject a democratic union?

I do not think a democratic union is in the interests of Europe. You are either deluding yourself about the causes of war or thinking that 'bigger is better'. The EU has not stopped war in Europe; NATO has. Neither is bigger always better.

The fact is though that the current scheme is flawed and corrupt from bottom up (well top down in this case). You have to be 'democratic' to join... but the system you join is anti - demoacratic, where a few flawed 'idealists' are determined to get their way no matter how much it costs in financial or democratic terms. They promised prosperity with the euro, others warned them it was flawed but they were discounted as 'mad' and 'xenophobes'... "reactionaries" to use the real term; they went ahead nevertheless knowing, I am quite convinced, that it would produce a "crisis" in which extra undemocratic measures to push their 'project' forward could be justified: The appointment of troikas etc and Prime Ministers in 2 countries...

Are you sure this is a safe way forward? To me it seems insane and only laying the ground for another war or civil wars. Let me ask; what happens if the next lot of bail out isn't given to Greece? They have to leave the euro in November... then what? Why isn't the ECB buying Greek bonds?

Let me give you a hint: "In recent weeks, senior military figures and veteran right-wing politicians have warned that the army might step in after Catalonia threatened to declare independence", regarding Spain. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ace-Prize.html

[Sarmatian]

I do not think a democratic union is in the interests of Europe. You are either deluding yourself about the causes of war or thinking that 'bigger is better'. The EU has not stopped war in Europe; NATO has. Neither is bigger always better.

One could argue that USSR/Russia stopped the war in Europe as Europe for the first time had an enemy that could take all of it on and quite possibly win, and NATO was merely a reflection of that.

Then again, USSR/Russia is also in Europe so it becomes a moot point...

Generally though, it is bad idea to think of European fragmentation as a "good thing" etc etc... In the entire history of the world we were ahead of China GDP-wise for what... about 150-175 years. We'll be ahead for another 30 maybe, 50 at most. So, in the last few thousand years, we managed to be ahead for less than two centuries. Not exactly a great record, I'd say.

Anyway, most pro-Europe position doesn't exactly want a dictatorship based in Brussels, but a framework where we could deal with issues that are bigger than national governments, like climate changes, long term sustainable food production, protection of the natural environment, some military issues like common defence and, where needed, economic policies. Most other stuff, the practical stuff, would be decentralized and would be dealt on local/regional level, bypassing nation states for the most part.

[gaelic cowboy]

Europe has been rather homogeneous and getting more so. There is actually quite a strong European identity, especially with newer generations. I have travelled Europe and pretty much everyone then valued Europe and grumbled about nationalists trying to ruin a good thing.

I feel connected with Horetore, Husar, Louis, and a great many of the European posters on here.

til they ended up on the hook for bad investments then suddenly it's all national interest again.

[SoFarSoGood]

One could argue that USSR/Russia stopped the war in Europe as Europe for the first time had an enemy that could take all of it on and quite possibly win, and NATO was merely a reflection of that.

Then again, USSR/Russia is also in Europe so it becomes a moot point...

Generally though, it is bad idea to think of European fragmentation as a "good thing" etc etc... In the entire history of the world we were ahead of China GDP-wise for what... about 150-175 years. We'll be ahead for another 30 maybe, 50 at most. So, in the last few thousand years, we managed to be ahead for less than two centuries. Not exactly a great record, I'd say.

Anyway, most pro-Europe position doesn't exactly want a dictatorship based in Brussels, but a framework where we could deal with issues that are bigger than national governments, like climate changes, long term sustainable food production, protection of the natural environment, some military issues like common defence and, where needed, economic policies. Most other stuff, the practical stuff, would be decentralized and would be dealt on local/regional level, bypassing nation states for the most part.

All sound and sensible ideas and I'd vote for that, sadly it is not what is happening. See the Nazi salutes at Mrs Merkel? Perhaps the Greeks are just being obtuse but when you were promised democracy and prosperity and get the opposite you have a right to feel robbed.

[rory_20_uk]

All sound and sensible ideas and I'd vote for that, sadly it is not what is happening. See the Nazi salutes at Mrs Merkel? Perhaps the Greeks are just being obtuse but when you were promised democracy and prosperity and get the opposite you have a right to feel robbed.

It was the Greek government that lied to them and fixed the books. The EU didn't exactly ask too many questions. Unless the average Greek is childish enough to imagine others will write them blank cheques for years to come they have only themselves to blame.

[SoFarSoGood]

It was the Greek government that lied to them and fixed the books. The EU didn't exactly ask too many questions. Unless the average Greek is childish enough to imagine others will write them blank cheques for years to come they have only themselves to blame.

You are partly correct; yes the Greeks and Goldman Sachs were 'cooking the books'; or commiting fraud to call it by it's true name. The EU was party to the fraud. But then Germany had a bit of a dip economicaly so the ECB re-inflated the system (or "added liquidity" lol) with cheap loans, which of course all the southern bloc lapped up. Germany got out of it's mini - dip and payed for eastern Germany cheap - and then retrenched. The others however were off on cheap credit and all looking totaly as promised land-ish. Then credit dried up due to the US 'sub- prime' market (which again basicly means selling money fraudulently) and suddenly it all caved in... no more cheap cash.

If you think this a coincidence though you are mistaken. ALL the private institutions/banks were fooled. There was to be NO bail outs in both Maastrict and Lisbon this possibility is ruled out; never going to happen... except it has and we are waiting for the 'troika' to take over Spain when they have to ask for a bail out. But the answer is more of the same...?

[SoFarSoGood]

"State of Emergency for Business" says the Mouvement des Entreprises de France over Article 6 of the new tax code. Article 6 raises the top rate of capital gains tax from 34.5% to 62.2%. Which is pretty stupid as in Germany it's 26.4% and in the UK 28%.

Presumably this is to allow M. Hollande to hire his 60,000 new teachers as he promised. Only trouble is becuase less private business's will be around to pay his new ectortion he won't get the tax returns to hire the teachers. I wasn't aware that France needed 60k new teachers anyway but it must be so.

[Kralizec]

You are partly correct; yes the Greeks and Goldman Sachs were 'cooking the books'; or commiting fraud to call it by it's true name. The EU was party to the fraud. But then Germany had a bit of a dip economicaly so the ECB re-inflated the system (or "added liquidity" lol) with cheap loans, which of course all the southern bloc lapped up. Germany got out of it's mini - dip and payed for eastern Germany cheap - and then retrenched. The others however were off on cheap credit and all looking totaly as promised land-ish. Then credit dried up due to the US 'sub- prime' market (which again basicly means selling money fraudulently) and suddenly it all caved in... no more cheap cash.

If you think this a coincidence though you are mistaken. ALL the private institutions/banks were fooled. There was to be NO bail outs in both Maastrict and Lisbon this possibility is ruled out; never going to happen... except it has and we are waiting for the 'troika' to take over Spain when they have to ask for a bail out. But the answer is more of the same...?

Greece was let in because of the precedent of Italy. Italy managed to briefly satisfy the budget criteria, on paper at least, when the decision was to be made wether Italy would become part of the eurozone as soon as 1999. This was realized by some opportunist bookkeeping and introducing reform measures that would be repealed after several months due to political instability. It was known that Greece was much the same, but as said, they were let in because their case was seen as being similar to Italy.

The reality was that Greece was far worse. What Italy did at a decisive point of time, Greece did to a far greater extent for over a decade. Even the Greek government didn't know in 2009 just exactly how bad their situation was, because all the official statistics were bunk. Germany and others can be blamed for letting in Italy in so easily; but Greece was let in under the assumption that their books weren't worse than Italy.

[Fragony]

Greece was let in because of the precedent of Italy. Italy managed to briefly satisfy the budget criteria, on paper at least, when the decision was to be made wether Italy would become part of the eurozone as soon as 1999. This was realized by some opportunist bookkeeping and introducing reform measures that would be repealed after several months due to political instability. It was known that Greece was much the same, but as said, they were let in because their case was seen as being similar to Italy.

The reality was that Greece was far worse. What Italy did at a decisive point of time, Greece did to a far greater extent for over a decade. Even the Greek government didn't know in 2009 just exactly how bad their situation was, because all the official statistics were bunk. Germany and others can be blamed for letting in Italy in so easily; but Greece was let in under the assumption that their books weren't worse than Italy.

And who is to blame for that then the international-socialism already knew that their books were way off.

[SoFarSoGood]

The reality was that Greece was far worse. What Italy did at a decisive point of time, Greece did to a far greater extent for over a decade. Even the Greek government didn't know in 2009 just exactly how bad their situation was, because all the official statistics were bunk. Germany and others can be blamed for letting in Italy in so easily; but Greece was let in under the assumption that their books weren't worse than Italy.

And nobody in the EU noticed or said a word? If they didn't notice then they are guilty of deriliction of their duty. If they did know and didn't say anything then they accomplices to the fraud. Don't forget real people lost money over this when private investerors had to take a 75% 'haircut'. No wonder they have to be legaly exempt because otherwise they would be in prison.