Euro Area

[Fragony]

Husar is right, the concept of a nation-state is a very modern idea, 19centurish

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ascendancy-E.../dp/0582772591 < pretty good

[Husar]

I also forgot to mention that "1200 hundred" years are 120,000 years, that's quite a stretch IA.

[Furunculus]

This is what Furunculus has been saying for years, Andres, Husar feels closer to his own politicians than poor Cypriots. It's the fundamental problem with the EU and why it doesn't work - people don't see it as a pan-European political issue, they see it as a pet project of the elite, and it's not like people voted for the Euro - it's just that all the big parties supported the Euro.

Indeed i have.

@Furunculus is, just like everyone else who shares my viewpoints and agrees with me, clearly a genius. He should be put at the head of the Eurozone and the EU and lead us to glory.

Well quite. If you want some vintage Furunculus then i think this statement has stood the test of time:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2271636

Shinseikhan - "Would a European gov't be more authoritarian and secretive because it would be someone ruling from Paris or Brussels instead of the current splendid lot?"

yes. in my opinion this is an inevitable result of moving the cratos further away from the demos, and severing the link that allows both groups the trust the other.
an electorate that watches its masters enact policy that is inimical to the will of the people will grow resentful and contemptuous, especially when they are so far removed from the centre of power, and such a small function of that power, that they see themselves powerless to change things via the democratic process.
a ruling class that enacts policy over a multitude of differnt social and cultural electorate groups must know that it cannot please everyone, (and will in fact please no-one in its compromises) will learn to harden themselves against voter opinion, especially when there is no local link that allows them to empathise with 'their' electorate, and the electorate is so massive and fractured that their can never be effective opposition to individual acts.
it is not that these problems do not occur in national government, merely that they will be greatly magnified on a federal level if we take as disparate a group as the electorates of the 27 eu nations.

i think i deserve a fricking medal!

[Furunculus]

Furunculus is under a childish belief that what is now has always been.

Utterly wrong, for i have always accepted the fundamental truth that britain has been as successful ass it has in large part because it has adapted to events, and that in consequence our political settlement has largely dispensed with periodic revolution precisely because that ceaseless change has [slowly] ground on.

I can even evidence that with some vintage Furunculus:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2306521

successful nations adapt and evolve to the situation around them, and who knows, in a hundred years time my two tests may have different answers, but for britain now and the near future there is no point in subsuming into dysfunctional federal europe.

If there is one reason I am sympathetic to the Tories it is the definition of what British Conservatism is:

the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly-changing organic humane traditionalism.

If there is one reason why I am sympathetic to the Lib-Dem's it is because the Tories don't always live up to the statement above.

He deems himself British by nationality, which is already kind of supra-national identity as he really is English, which may or may not be forced onto him after the Scottish referendum, also ignoring that Great Britain came into existence a few centuries ago.

The thing you don't understand is that I am British because it is an identity that I am comfortable with, and englishness is quite irrelevant.
Britain is a multi-nation state, similar to the ambitions of the EU.

However, the difference is that almost nobody considers fellow european nations to be their 'family' in the same way they do their countrymen whereas britishness is a widespread and popular identity. Yes, it co-exists with englishness, and welshness, and scottishness, and which is considered the dominant identity varies from person to person, but they can happily coexist.

You mention the Scottish referendum and I laugh, I laugh heartily, for the Scottish question is EXACTLY the same as the EU one:

are you my family, willing to look to the interests of me and mine, as I would you and yours?

That is the question the Scots are being asked to answer, and family is a two way relationship, so yes if they vote to leave I will have to reevaluate my commitment to the Scots and 'Britishness' will mean less in consequence.

I am british, i consider myself kin to all of the parts of the uk, and care little for any identity that derives from the place of my birth (england). If the scots reject that familial link, i will have to change in response, they will become kith. I would be disappointed, but a 'marriage' demands the commitment of both partners.

The crucial feature of indirect democracy is the perception of representation, the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.

The manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.

I simply do not recognise a sufficiently congruent set of aims and expectations to assent to being governed by the common will of the EU.

This does not mean that we should not strive towards harmonious cooperation and collaboration wherever a common viewpoint will bring a more effective outcome, but............

A nation is either:
1. a broadly sovereign state within the EU (as Britain has tried to become)
2. a functioning part of a larger sovereign entity (such as the converged euro-core will become)

The only other alternative is being a dependent adjunct to a larger sovereign entity. A Sanjak, in short, as Greece was in Ottoman times and is again today.

Becoming an EU Sanjak is neither liberal nor democratic, so propose me a solution because otherwise we will be leaving…………

more vintage Furunculus:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2269020

if the mainstream parties continue to ignore the will of the electorate, then we all may very well find that parties like UKIP do just fine at the next elections, the recent euro-elections should be seen as warning shot across the bows.

in this light the conservative move to create an anti-federal bloc within the EU is very important.

[Furunculus]

EU is criticized, most vocally on these boards by Furunculus, because it is a supra-national organization. In lay terms, it won't work because a guy from Marseille doesn't care for a guy from Krakow, and a guy from Ljubljana doesn't care for a guy from Copenhagen, you get the concept. On the other hand, in a nation state, supposedly, people do care about each other, so a guy from London cares about a guy from Edinburgh.

I do agree that a guy from Marseille doesn't care for a guy from Krakow, but I also think that when **** hits the fan, a guy from London doesn't care any more for a guy from Edinburgh.

Not a bad summation, more or less exactly what is said four years ago.

More vintage Furunculus:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2269201

it always comes back to the question of; why does britain need to do this? and i at least never hear a convincing answer.

my skepticism about how democratic a federal EU will be is informed by the base concept of what democracy is:

which is to say that you and I consent to be governed by the british government because the shared values, culture, and history will 'ensure' that those elected to govern in your name will do so in a manner that you can live with.
you elect a local politician based on his knowledge of your communities needs, and the assumption that because he is local he will fight to see those needs met.
your local politician then works with other broadly similar (read: british) politicians to govern the nation, which as Churchill agreed is the least bad form of governance yet devised.

it is a matter of trust, you don't lightly let convicted thieves operate tills in your shop, you don't let unvetted strangers run your kids play-group.

i don't have that confidence that the brussels collective will legislate/govern/arbitrate/negotiate in a manner that i am willing to be bound by, and lots of other people share that view too. and its not just brits, Louis would be horrified were it occur that les anglo-saxons had turned corsica into a tax-haven where french hedge fund managers could squirrel away money that should be spent on the hard working french citizen! i am dismayed that germany cuts energy deals with russia that result in pipelines going around former eastern-bloc countries and thus making them susceptible to extortion. finland doesn't like our closeness with america and refuses to join NATO. Norway sees the benefit of NATO but not much advantage in the political end of the EU. germany wouldn't trust an italian or a greek to be within a square mile of german economic policy.

every nation forms its collective values from their own shared history and culture, and none of that is bad in and of itself, but people get riled when views they do not hold to be of value are forced upon them by 'outsiders'. "it's one thing for my mother to tell me i drink too much, but who the hell does my milkman think he is to say such a thing!"

the natural answer to this lack of legitimacy is an increase in authoritarianism, as the only way to govern those who hold no loyalty to the governors. aka tryanny.

so when there is no need for britain to join a federated europe, and the only result is less representative government................ why do it?

Regarding the relative good will to edinburgh vs krakow, well we are about to find out in less than eighteen months.............. Watch this space!

[Furunculus]

Regardless, Furunculus, were he here, would tell you that it's not historical fact by historical myth that defines a national character. The Scots and English can just about stand each other - but there exists little to no fraternity between the English and French, and only slightly more between the English and Germans.

Fortunately for you.............. "Huzzzzaaarrrr!"

My answer is best given in vintage Furunculus:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2303351

Subotan - "don't understand (Most) Eurosceptics. They say that the EU is undemocratic; which is a fair criticism, and needs to be addressed. But this somehow translates into the whole concept being flawed, and that the EU should be dismantled. Ok, fair enough. But what's your alternative? Go it alone against USA, India, Russia and China?"


No, the whole concept is unecessary and inherently un-demos-cratos. I say this because I believe in the sovereign nation-state. 1000+ years of co-existence and co-dependence has forged the English people, and latterly the British peoples, into a group with a shared culture, shared social norms and values, and a shared world view. Therefore I trust this body of people act in a way that I generally approve of, and to produce a governing body that will act broadly in manner that I understand and accept. Therefore I am willing to be bound by their decisions, and thus is my acquiescence to the will of the state created. I am, in short, willing to suffer the consequence of my governments actions. I share no such empathy and common history with the continental nations, therefore I have no trust that they (the EU) will act in a manner that I approve of, and thus I do not acquiesce to be governed by the EU. In short, I am unwilling to suffer the consequence of the EU's actions conducted in my name. It will never be right that I should be governed by those I do not consider my 'family', hence I will never support the EU's political ambitions.
You know what, i'm pretty sure there are lots of people in europe who feel the same way about britain too, and that's okay, why should they want our free-booting capitalist ways interfering with their own political evolution.

[Fragony]

Cyprus

EUSSR: all your savings are belong to us

Simon says: bankruns all over the eurozone

[Brenus]

Not only Eurozone. UK as well, as we saved the banks for the managers to get their bonuses.

[Husar]

That's a good thing, the banks will finally fail as they should have in 2008.

[Fragony]

That's a good thing, the banks will finally fail as they should have in 2008.

Not such a good thing if it's your money, and pretty dumb if it's Russia's maffia/industry money. In a way I am glad the EUSSR made the biggest mistake in their already impressive repertoire of total faillure. How many billions does Germany has invested in Russia? I forgot but a lot. Chario

[Husar]

Not such a good thing if it's your money, and pretty dumb if it's Russia's maffia/industry money. In a way I am glad the EUSSR made the biggest mistake in their already impressive repertoire of total faillure. How many billions does Germany has invested in Russia? I forgot but a lot. Chario

Don't put your money into banks that could fail, it's capitalism. Are you a communist?

[Fragony]

Don't put your money into banks that could fail, it's capitalism. Are you a communist?

Nice try, but Russia isn't very happy that the EU is going to steal their money, there will be consequences for investors in Russia, say goodbye to your tripple-a status already

[Husar]

Nice try, but Russia isn't very happy that the EU is going to steal their money, there will be consequences for investors in Russia, say goodbye to your tripple-a status already

And the EU wasn't very happy that Russia wanted to steal its gas. So what?
If Russia wants to scare away investors that's their problem, I'm not aware they have a triple-a status that they could lose.

[Fragony]

And the EU wasn't very happy that Russia wanted to steal its gas. So what?
If Russia wants to scare away investors that's their problem, I'm not aware they have a triple-a status that they could lose.

You do. They probably won't shut of the gas supply but will threaten with it making people very nervous, a lot of the money stored there is from Gascom which supplies essential gas supplies. The EU shot itself in the foot and I couldn't be happier really. Timber.

[Husar]

You do. They probably won't shut of the gas supply but will threaten with it making people very nervous, a lot of the money stored there is from Gascom which supplies essential gas supplies. The EU shot itself in the foot and I couldn't be happier really. Timber.

Yeah, the best thing that could come out of it would be another war.

[Fragony]

Yeah, the best thing that could come out of it would be another war.

I very much prefer war over the EU, it will come anyway, these idiots already rebuild all the conditions that can lead to it

[Catiline]

The Russians can't threaten cutting off gas, no one will buy it in the future if they do.

War is better than the EU...

[Fragony]

The Russians can't threaten cutting off gas, no one will buy it in the future if they do.

War is better than the EU...

As if they haven't done that before, not threatening but actually doing it. EU is rebuilding 1848 but it's now north and south

[Catiline]

They did it to the Ukraine, which isn't the quite same thing as doing it to the EU directly. They'll destroy their energy market in the long term if they do it again. there are other sources of gas if the Russians make themselves unreliable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Except they have, and they will.

[Fragony]

They did it to the Ukraine, which isn't the quite same thing as doing it to the EU directly. They'll destroy their energy market in the long term if they do it again. there are other sources of gas if the Russians make themselves unreliable.

You almost make it sound like the EU isn't desperately trying fix deeper problems with short-term solutions like stealing from the Russians. The EU cares about the EU, not about you.

[Catiline]

I'm in Dubai and not paying any taxes, so I'm not that worried if the EU cares about me or not for the moment.

The Russians haven't cut off gas to Europe. They've cut it off to Ukraine and Belarus, which had knock on effects in Europe, but that's not the same as using it as a tool directly against the EU. The Russians might be obscure in their thinking, but they're not stupid, and holding the energy to ransom isn't in their best interests.

[Fragony]

I'm in Dubai and not paying any taxes, so I'm not that worried if the EU cares about me or not for the moment.

The Russians haven't cut off gas to Europe. They've cut it off to Ukraine and Belarus, which had knock on effects in Europe, but that's not the same as using it as a tool directly against the EU. The Russians might be obscure in their thinking, but they're not stupid, and holding the energy to ransom isn't in their best interests.

Won't be cut you are right about that.

[Sarmatian]

As if they haven't done that before, not threatening but actually doing it. EU is rebuilding 1848 but it's now north and south

Russians never cut of gas to EU. Russia never cut off anything to Europe for that matter, even during the biggest crisis of the Cold War. The biggest and most stable industrial power in Europe is powered by Russian energy, so go figure.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ukraine isn't in Europe, then?

[Kralizec]

About the Cyprus situation...

I can see why people say it's an unwise decision; setting a precedent that frightens deposit holders in other financially troubled countries and all that. But unfair? Without this deal the people who had deposits at Cypriot banks could very well have lost the bulk of their money. Even people with less than 100.000 E's would not be safe - look at Iceland; the only reason people got back any money at all was because the Icelandic government nationalised the parts which held accounts from natives and because the British and Dutch governments helped out their own citizens and were never compensated.

In the deal that was voted down the other day, most deposit holders would pay about 6% of their assets - which is pretty close to the interest rate that these banks pay for one single year. Am I supposed to feel sorry for these people, who've parked tens or hundreds of thousands of euro's in a place that yields extremely high returns, which would never be offered by a sustainable bank which operates responsibly, and are asked for a contribution equal to one single year of interest for bailing out their sorry asses?

[Furunculus]

I have no problem with the concept of risk in a fractional reserve banking system, but it is risky to do so when the decisions are considered to have no legitimacy, because they are perceived to have been imposed by an 'outside' power.

Are you my family?

[Kralizec]

I found out the other day that I have some Scottish ancestry. Then again, they're not your family either, are they?

If the Cypriots think they're being screwed over by other European countries, they need to realise:
1) at some point the assets of Cypriot banks equaled 7 times the size of their own GDP. The financial and economic policies of their government may not be the fault of the average Cypriot bloke, but it sure as hell isn't the fault of the Finnish, Dutch or French taxpayer
2) if they weren't an Eurozone member, their government would probably have devalued its currency by now, which would have been far worse then a single, one-off 6% tax on their deposits.

But regardless I'm sure that whatever I say, some people (not you) will find always find way to argue that Cyprus' woes are not in any way the responsibility of the country in question but rather an expression of German racism.

[Furunculus]

I found out the other day that I have some Scottish ancestry. Then again, they're not your family either, are they?

But regardless I'm sure that whatever I say, some people (not you) will find always find way to argue that Cyprus' woes are not in any way the responsibility of the country in question but rather an expression of German racism.

quite the opposite, i would be naturally inclined to sympathise with the german position, for why should they assume an unlimited liability for people with whom they do not consider to be their family, i.e. a shared social and cultural history from which springs a sufficiently harmonious set of aspirations and values that you can both assent to a shared destiny................. but,

it isn't that simple, because germany is a democracy and they chose to enter a monetary union and assuming just such a liability is implicit, it is called ever closer union for a reason. they made their bed and they must lie in it.

i say this as someone with enormous empathy for their predicament, and no little understanding for the weight of history that stands behind their decision to abandon the beloved deutchmark, but they are adults of legally sound mind and must therefore take responsibility for their actions.

Germany should leave unless it can accommodate itself to transferring up to 5% of GDP (Edward Chancellor says 3.6%), to its poorer 'family' year-on-year, in perpetuity.

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:

national pay-bargaining which benefits poorer regions (teachers, nurses, etc)
national social benefits more generous than poorer regions could afford alone (eg.housing benefit in glasgow)
targeted regional development grants/discounts to encourage business growth (objective 1 EU/WEFO funds)
additional infrastructure spending to support the local economy (the mainland-skye bridge)
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.

[Catiline]

Ukraine isn't in Europe, then?

Debatable for us perhaps. It's not for the Russians...