Euro Area

[SoFarSoGood]

Belongs to Prince Charles the Prince of Wales and boundaries, if I recall are the Tamar (?).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does the modern county of Cornwall actually correspond geographically to ancient Cornwall/the Cornwall that the nationalists want to be independent, or is it bigger? Would people in Devon be Cornish nationalists?

I am guessing it is based from the Dumnonia period.

Cornish Nationalists take the modern County (that they call a Dutchy) as their claim - the people of Devon are entirely Anglicised.

Thanks be to God.

[InsaneApache]

Define Anglicised.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Define Anglicised.

"They think they are English".

[SoFarSoGood]

To be honest most Cornish regard themselves as British. My great Grandmother defined herself as Kentish first but only because she claimed that Kent was the first 'English' Kingdom.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

but what does that mean?

Increasingly the English do not see themselves as "British" even though the Cornish, Welsh, Scots and Irish do.

What does that tell you?

[Strike For The South]

Bloody hangers on, that's what

I'm utterly fascinated that these provincial backwaters get so much say.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Which is exactly what "that" tells you. As relative power is removed from the "English" but they still remain on the hook for the bulk of the taxes and incurred debts, to the English "Britain" increasingly means "you pay for us to ignore our demands".

[SoFarSoGood]

Means I have more in common with a Cornish person than I do with French person; we can both accept being 'British', we speak the language, have a generaly shared history for the last 1,700 yrs etc, both recognise the Queen as Head of State.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which is exactly what "that" tells you. As relative power is removed from the "English" but they still remain on the hook for the bulk of the taxes and incurred debts, to the English "Britain" increasingly means "you pay for us to ignore our demands".

"Spending without representation".

It's fairly clear the UK is coming part at the seems - and I can no longer summon the energy to care.

Means I have more in common with a Cornish person than I do with French person; we can both accept being 'British', we speak the language, have a generaly shared history for the last 1,700 yrs etc, both recognise the Queen as Head of State.

What does it mean to the Cornish though?

Go find 10 Cornishmen in Penzance who agree with you.

[Beskar]

Part of why Regionalism within a European Framework would work the best. It would give the autonomy needed to allow areas to truly prosper on their own two-feet.

[SoFarSoGood]

Part of why Regionalism within a European Framework would work the best. It would give the autonomy needed to allow areas to truly prosper on their own two-feet.

Except that neither the majority of Cornishmen or Men of Kent/Kentish Yeomen (depends which side of the Medway you were born) regard themselves as 'European'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Part of why Regionalism within a European Framework would work the best. It would give the autonomy needed to allow areas to truly prosper on their own two-feet.

How's that working out for the Greeks?

They haven't been "standing on their own two feet" they've been even more propped up by EU money than the Welsh and Cornish are by English money - and they're still spiraling into poverty now.

I applaud you ideals Beskar, but you have no plan to implement them. Remember when you tried dividing England into regions and EVERY Englishman here complained about the divisions?

I'm sorry - but your ideas justd lack any grounding in political reality.

[Beskar]

I applaud you ideals Beskar, but you have no plan to implement them. Remember when you tried dividing England into regions and EVERY Englishman here complained about the divisions?

I'm sorry - but your ideas justd lack any grounding in political reality.

You mean these? Regions of England
They already exist, just ran by unelected quangos. Unfortunately, the concept was scrapped after the failure of the North-East vote.

They already exist for other countries.
Germany France (so on)

It would simply be regional divisions based around NUTS1-NUTS2 depending on historical context and already implemented status quo.

It would be removing a middle layer of government, that being, the "nation state" into the already existing component parts which make up the area. With these powers diverting mainly to the regions themselves, with Europe playing a limited role, it would create a far stable Europe giving greater decentralisation to the areas that require it.

So political reality as in tomorrow morning? That would be entirely foolish to think that. But Political Reality as in something achievable? Then I think so.

[Beskar]

The lesson of modern Europe is obvious: In a globalized world, you all have to pool your resources to compete. That much is 100% obvious to everyone, I think. The question is how, and under what kind of structure.

Whilst I agree, others don't. That is the issue. The problem is the 'nation states' looking out for themselves, at the expense of others. Ranging from Greece to Germany. In a way, think of them as "power-blocs" within an union, and like it or not, people underneath those power blocs have to toe that party-line, even if they agree with someone else on how to deal with the issues.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You mean these? Regions of England
They already exist, just ran by unelected quangos. Unfortunately, the concept was scrapped after the failure of the North-East vote.

They already exist for other countries.
Germany France (so on)

It would simply be regional divisions based around NUTS1-NUTS2 depending on historical context and already implemented status quo.

It would be removing a middle layer of government, that being, the "nation state" into the already existing component parts which make up the area. With these powers diverting mainly to the regions themselves, with Europe playing a limited role, it would create a far stable Europe giving greater decentralisation to the areas that require it.

So political reality as in tomorrow morning? That would be entirely foolish to think that. But Political Reality as in something achievable? Then I think so.

Yeah, try getting government going in those "regions".

Why abolish the Nation-State? Why not abolish regionalism instead? Either way, every piece of evidence points to the Central Government trying to accrue more power, and the EU ALREADY does this with every treaty.

Actual alliances would serve everyone better, rather than this hamfisted attempt to bolt the Roman Empire back together.

The lesson of modern Europe is obvious: In a globalized world, you all have to pool your resources to compete. That much is 100% obvious to everyone, I think. The question is how, and under what kind of structure.

When was the world economy not globalised?

Norway traded with Byzantium and Viking merchants when as far as the Black Sea.

Competition is a matter of Power, Power requires the imposition of one group's will upon another's.

Like the British Empire - the most powerful government and economic bloc ever.

[Sarmatian]

So, barring some acceptable form of unification, Europeans will simply have to accept that some areas will be poorer than others.

Que?

Aren't some areas of US poorer than others?

[Kralizec]

There's a vast difference between the "regionalism" in Germany and France. The former has a federal constitution with significant powers awarded exclusively to the Lander. The latter is a very centralised state which has granted some autonomy to the regions but actively meddles in their affairs, sometimes amounting to micromanagement.

It's really up to the existing countries themselves to decide the balance between centralism and regional autonomy. Some countries are really too small to justify a sub-division into regions. Allthough it would be funny to see the Dutch lands renamed "the Nether Regions" on maps of Europe.

When was the world economy not globalised?

Norway traded with Byzantium and Viking merchants when as far as the Black Sea.

Competition is a matter of Power, Power requires the imposition of one group's will upon another's.

Like the British Empire - the most powerful government and economic bloc ever.

And Europe has (indirectly) traded with the far east since time immemorial. I thought it was obvious that globalization refers to a massive increase in volume, both in goods and traffic of persons.

Even the most ardent eurosceptics generally acknowledge that some cooperation is beneficial; the difference being that they want issues decided on a case-by-case basis with multilateral treaties. As GC said, "the question is how, and under what kind of structure."

Britain is an odd duck, and when i speak of Europe i don't tend to think of the UK as part of it.

What i meant was that in todays world, nations like Spain, Italy, and Greece can't stand on their own without lowering their own quality of life. In order to create a Europe with "equality" in standards of living across the board, there would need to be an institutionalized way to spread the burdens and benefits around.

It would be the same situation if the USA was divided into smaller countries--certain regions would not be able to stand on their own.

All of those eurozone countries which are now in trouble functioned as autonomous economies before, there's no particular reason why they can't be self-sufficient even under a shared currency.

The issue about living standards is that some southern European countries, Greece in particular, were not industrial powerhouses like Germany but nevertheless their citizens felt that they deserved a comparable standard of living and pushed for wage increases year after year. Some have proposed that we need a long-term transfer union to make sure that Greeks and Italians can continue on basicly the same path. Others, me included, feel that we should mop up the current mess one way or another and in the long term ensure that these countries live with what they have.

So, barring some acceptable form of unification, Europeans will simply have to accept that some areas will be poorer than others.

Pretty much.

There are already EU funds for regions that are underdeveloped, or to increase synergy between regions across national borders. That, and the fact that contributions to the EU budget are already linked to GDP means that the EU is already "spreading the wealth" at a modest level. These projects are vastly more useful than the CAP (agricultural subsidies) but IMO there should be no transfers beyond these.

[HopAlongBunny]

It sounds like a federal system would be the best choice. Local decision making with a transfer union to ensure roughly comparable levels of public services.

Keeping health and education services comparable would ease labor movement within the union. But again you run into at least the perception of a "free-ride" being handed to the less economically advantaged.

[Furunculus]

Que?

Aren't some areas of US poorer than others?

indeed they are, but federal 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!

This 'sloshing' occurs in the form of:
1. national pay-bargaining which benefits poorer regions (teachers, nurses, etc)
2. national social benefits more generous than poorer regions could afford alone (eg.housing benefit in glasgow)
3. targeted regional development grants/discounts to encourage business growth (objective 1 EU/WEFO funds)
4. additional infrastructure spending to support the local economy (the mainland-skye bridge)
5. operating national services hubs from depressed regions to boost wages (DVLA in swansea, etc)

[Beskar]

There's a vast difference between the "regionalism" in Germany and France. The former has a federal constitution with significant powers awarded exclusively to the Lander. The latter is a very centralised state which has granted some autonomy to the regions but actively meddles in their affairs, sometimes amounting to micromanagement.

The point was more that these units already exist and already in place by the various countries. Sure they differ politically, but the units are in already in place.

As for country size and the like, that doesn't matter. The idea was have the divisions based upon NUTS1 to NUTS2 divisions, which are based around population. The main concept would be a NUTS1 framework with extra divisions/regions based on practical and local-historical desires. Though on a brighter note, Belgium is actually made up of 2 NUTS1, which goes along the Flanders/Wallonia line. So it would split that current 'nation state' into two, and would oddly enough, make both regions more stable politically and economically.

[Fragony]

This is just too funny, the socialist ex-mp of Greece somehow managed to put half a billion euro on his mother's bank account. Dear Greeks, isn't it about time you give your political elite a French shave. I know it isn't really your fault. Over here we will be cheering for ya

[gaelic cowboy]

Speaking of Greece did ye all notice they managed to default on payments again and the world didnt collapse, maybe there finally copping that Greece needs to be allowed to walk away from these debts.

If they don't then Angela will have to continue shoveling money into the fire.

[Lemur]

[D]id ye all notice [Greece] managed to default on payments again and the world didnt collapse

I expect that any institution holding Greek debt has partially or completely written it down by this late date.

[gaelic cowboy]

I expect that any institution holding Greek debt has partially or completely written it down by this late date.

indeed and the euro politicians are still running scared of the gnomes of zurich

[Fragony]

Yikes! The international socialism wants control over the funding and legitamcy of political parties, not pro-superstate, no go, you have to be pro-EU to be represented in the EP. Parties like the UKIP or the PVV will simply be banned, more and more is it's true form comming into shape, there cannot be any doubt about the international socialism if they get their way. These guys are truly scary. Even the most rabidly europhile party D66(6) are not 100% sure about this

(Dutch) http://imgur.com/OuvzY

[Beskar]

Any sources in a written format opposed to a picture (and preferably in English, but I could google translate the dutch), Fragony?

[Fragony]

Can get you the pdf but it's in Dutch

Ain't it great, the unelected eurocrats who want to decide if a elected party is legitimate

[Sarmatian]

Dutch .pdf files are notoriously unreliable.

[Furunculus]

britain and sweden got exactly what we wanted out of the banking union:

1, Legal recognition that the eurozone is separate from the single market, and nothing it does should prejudice the wider interests of the 27.
2, Double qmv to ensure eurozone caucusing cannot prejudice the interests of those outside the euro.

made of win!