Euro democracy

[Dave225]

First it was the Greek PM who was booted out of office, now it is the turn of Belusconi to be given his marching orders by Germany and France. Not that I was much of a fan of him as he always seemed to have little idea of what was going on, except at party time. But for other nations to actively interfere in a sovereign nation and push for change in the government to one more amenable to their ideas, is very worrying. Ireland was also ‘encouraged’ to appoint a PM more in tune with what the eurocrats wanted as a price for their bail out. Conquer by stealth comes to mind and the words ‘deja vu’ also seem appropriate. They will not try that with the UK, unless Cleggie gets his way, but they will try to sideline us from any major decisions. Now the proposal is for a ‘troika’ of France, Germany and Holland to rule the roost in Europe while the rest pay lip service.

 

Something has got to give, even Angie Merkel has mentioned she hopes it does not come to military fallout. One wonders from what prespective she is looking at?

[Colin Leake]

Euro Democracy where did you get that title for a thread from? We all know there is no such thing!

[Lord Braykewynde]

A bit ironic that two countries, Germany and France, who have a history of dictatorship are dictating to the country that gave birth to democracy :-)

[nightrider]

It seems to me that the whole world is falling apart, could it lead to war, who knows?

[CliveH]

The problem is one with two "end points".

 

End point one is the PIGS (Portugal Italy Greece & Spain - and you could put a second I in there for Ireland) leaving the Euro as staying in will lead to riots on the streets as the austerity programmes inflicted on them are so severe that revolution becomes attractive.

 

End point two is that Germany and its immediate neighbours effectively "leave" the European economy by propping up a defunct € experiment. i.e. a two tier Europe which many of us think is the only option. But the problem for Germany if this happens is that without the € balancing all the economies, German products will suddenly be so expensive as to make them un sellable in all but the "home market"

 

And that is what Merkel is so frightened of.

 

If the Eurozone falls apart, then a VW Golf advertised on TV last night for c £14K will retail post € as we know it, for considerably more. Thus consumers in the Eurozone that could afford German products BECAUSE their crumbling economies were pegged to the "German €" will no longer.

 

They will simply buy product from other sources and Germany will stall.

 

So IMHO - we have two choices as the concept of the status quo where rich countries within the Eurozone lend money to the struggling ones is just falling apart as the whole world sees that the very IDEA of the Euro was badly thought out and set up for POLITICAL reasons rather than ECONOMIC.

 

Choice one is to allow the PIIGS a sensible exit.

 

Choice two is to allow the PIIGS a sensible exit

 

Because if you think about it both "End Points" result in the same thing. A decreased single currency zone for Germany and its immediate neighbours.

 

The big loser in this will be Germany - hence (IMO) Merkel's unusual honesty slip in saying that conflict could be the result if Germany does not get its way.

 

[CliveH]

Germany and France 'hold talks on eurozone break-up'

 

10 Nov 2011 | 07:30

 

IFAonline

 

Categories: Economics / Markets | Europe

 

Topics: European commission

 

Germany and France have begun preliminary talks about a possible break-up of the eurozone, according to reports, amid fresh fears about the future of Italy after the nation's cost of borrowing hit a new record.

 

 

Although the disintegration of the single currency nations is still considered highly unlikely, the reports were last night deemed serious enough to prompt European Commission (EC) President Jose Manuel Barroso to issue a stark warning about the dangers of such a move.

 

 

A collapse of investor confidence in the eurozone's third-biggest economy sent interest rates in Italy above the critical 7% mark on Wednesday - the highest it has been in the country since the launch of the euro in 1999 and the level that triggered bailouts in Portugal, Greece and Ireland.

 

The European Central Bank (ECB), which had already been buying up Italian bonds in large amounts, may now be required to step up its purchasing action.

 

EU officials told more than one news agency that policymakers in Paris, Berlin and Brussels had discussed the possibility of one or more countries leaving the eurozone, with the more stable nations remaining united.

 

"France and Germany have had intense consultations on this issue over the last months, at all levels," a source in Brussels told Reuters.

 

EC President Barroso issued a fresh call for the EU to "unite or face irrelevance" in the face of the mounting economic crisis in Italy.

 

"We are witnessing fundamental changes to the economic and geopolitical order that have convinced me that Europe needs to advance now together or risk fragmentation," he said.

 

"Europe must either transform itself or it will decline. We are in a defining moment where we either unite or face irrelevance," he said.

 

...................................

 

 

Also posted as a new thread.

[Syd]

 

If Germany has to pay the piper then it is only right that Germany will call the tune surely.

 

I cannot fully understand just why France is sitting at the top table as it is also almost bankrupt isn't it ??

[CliveH]

Yes but France always has had delusions of grandeur. (lol)

 

To be fair - thier economy is suffering - but it is not that bad.

 

They would benefit hugely from being outside of the euro.

 

For us in the UK it is better that they are where they are!!!

[Guest Tracker]

CliveH - 2011-11-10 10:33 AM

 

Yes but France and the UK have always had delusions of grandeur. (lol)

 

/QUOTE]

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

Along similar lines Rich...;-)

 

Dave225 - 2011-11-09 8:32 PM

 

First it was the Greek PM who was booted out of office, now it is the turn of Belusconi to be given his marching orders by Germany and France....... for other nations to actively interfere in a sovereign nation and push for change in the government to one more amenable to their ideas, is very worrying.....?

 

Yeah,Dave..who DO they think they are? Britain would never do such a thing..... (lol) (lol)

[Dave225]

My title was intended as a pun, as yes, I fully agree the 2 are polar opposites. I also agree that Germany as usual is the nub of the problem, although I am not so sure they intended the current scenario. However, their actions did create the mess and they have profitted masively along the way, so maybe it is time for payback. I also agree that France always has to play the 'big man' even when they are pretty bad at it, although to be fair I suspect the majority of French people feel that Sarkozy is a disaster for their country. Now, that does sound like the UK.

 

Pepe, what do you mean by your comment?

 

I look at Cameron before the election and his 'I am against Europe' stance and his promise of a referendum, and then after when he schmoozes up to the French and Germans and the promises are forgotten. Has he been 'persuaded' to toe the line I wonder, maybe a nice job after he is deselected by the electorate here perhaps. Maybe his mate Cleggie has been having a quiet word in his shellikes. He now wants to throw more of our money after bad through the IMF.

 

However, the situation is worrying especially as it was all totally avoidable if only we had not had pygmies in charge (no disrespect to real pygmies intended).

 

Bluntly, I feel the best answer is to break the whole thing up, have the big hit and get it over with. The alternative is decades of misery and I cannot see the majority of all Europeans putting up with that. Then it will definitely be 'covet thy neighbour's chickens' time., which is where we came in in 1933.

[CliveH]

 

Agree in the main Dave - an excellent summary.

 

My only point would be that I do not want to see the whole thing broken up - I think the common currency has proved to be the disaster most sensible people predicted it would be - that does have to go.

 

What Europe should be is a Common trading block where member states have control of their own economy and currency. The politicians have ruined a good idea with the numpty nonsense idea of a United States of Europe, a European Army, and the common currency was a precursor to all of that.

 

Sadly I do think that to get the idiot politicians attention the average person in the EU is going to have to rebel against the idiocy of one section of Europe dictating to another that they will have to go through decades of austerity that will blight whole generations.

 

Seriously - what population is going to stand for that?

 

At best a secessionist party will win the next election(s) as they role out over Europe - at worst there will be revolt in those countries where people feel so helpless and disenfranchised that normal “life” no longer exists

 

What makes me so pessimistic is that many economic analysts are saying that even if this latest tranche of measures does get accepted – all it buys is a few months! By the new year the likes of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal will require the same amount all over again!

 

The nonsense has to stop somewhere. Increasingly it seems to me that Merkel in particular is driving an agenda that is not in any way “common” to the market that Europe should be, with all its wonderfully diverse countries and economies.

 

[Brian Kirby]

Interesting, this, because I find myself in agreement with parts, but in disagreement with other parts.

 

First I think the portrayal of Germany as the big bully is unfair and unreasonable. For whatever reason, they agreed to allow countries over which they had serious doubts at the time, to join the Euro. By and large, they are now paying handsomely for that error of judgement. One should always differentiate between a government, whose job is to govern, and a people who, having elected them, often disagree with what they do. However, that is the nature of democracy as practised in the West. Many of the German people seem highly dissatisfied with what the present German government is doing vis a vis Greece, and seem likely to be even more dissatisfied with what they will have to do vis a vis the other PIIGS. However, it was their choice.

 

The Euro-rot has two causes. First, those bad decisions over allowing the debtor states to cheat to gain entry, and second, not to have insisted on the logically necessary fiscal unification that would have imposed discipline on them. I do not see that would have lacked democracy, because it would have been democratically elected governments who would have applied for membership, or not, as they chose, knowing the terms.

 

Surely, the common currency originated as an economic idea. Its main problem is that it was implemented by politicians, and not by economists. It was supposed to have been introduced alongside greater political integration but the politicians failed to convince their electorates of the benefits of that, felt they had lost face, and pressed ahead instead with the currency when they would have been wiser to shelve it.

 

Germany undoubtedly benefits from the Euro because the less developed economies pull down its value, so giving them a trading advantage. So, absence of the weaker economies from Euroland would result in a rise in the Euro, and probably recession in Germany, France, Holland and Luxembourg, resulting, in turn, in a fall in the Euro. To what level? :-)

 

Where I really begin to disagree, is over this idea that a tariff free trading block the size of the EU could ever work in the absence of common objectives. I also doubt that such objectives could be achieved in the absence of common institutions. I further doubt that those objectives could work harmoniously, to the advantage of most - ideally all - without some degree of fiscal harmonisation. And I finally doubt that fiscal harmonisation could be achieved without the common institutions to bring it about. What is missing in all of this is the supra-national democratic element: the European parliament.

 

Just as with the failure of political integration, or of the Euro, it was the political representatives of the then member states who decided on the policy, not the European parliament. All that can ever be agreed by such means is the lowest common denominator. It is seldom sufficient. This bickering among the governments, with each trying to win on issues that are politically attractive to their individual electorates, results in a stalemate in which the technocrats in the civil service run rings around them. It is as though Britain was governed by the heads of each county and unitary authority, and their various "lead members", in a series of caucuses, with each free to tax and spend as they see fit.

 

The EU has developed out of the European Coal and Steel Community. It has grown in complexity broadly only in order to solve the problems of a developing free trade area. It needed people of great vision, and considerable political courage, to initiate, and then to develop to its present form. It is in the nature of turning any vision into a reality that it will have faults: how could it be otherwise, it is the work of mere mortals, not Gods. :-) Is Britain, or any other country, yet perfect? However, what is first made badly can be put right, and we really have to decide whether, on balance, we are better off with the EU, or without it. It is clear it could be better in many ways, but that merely means, IMO, it is our job to remedy the faults, not to destroy it. If we want the benefits of free trade, I honestly cannot see how we should be able to achieve that with anything significantly different from the present EU. I also cannot see the EU continuing in existence indefinitely without closer political and fiscal integration. I know many disagree, but it is, to me, the inevitable consequence of the idea of free trade.

 

Were we to try to go back to a world of tariff barriers, or even to free trade without the institutions, I strongly suspect many contributors to this forum (at least the ones still working) would find themselves far, far worse off than they now are. We should inhabit a world where small nation states scrabble among themselves for trading advantage, each looking for ways to cheapen their goods compared to the products of their neighbours, and having to decide, ultimately, who could work the longest hours for the least pay, while paying the lowest overall rates of tax. So, farewell NHS, farewell state education, farewell state pension, learn to live with poorly paid, increasingly corrupted police - for these would impose uncompetitive costs through high taxes. Those running the large multi-nationals would, of course, continue living in more agreeable tax and climatic regimes, on their billions, as they do now, while the rest of the population grappled with servitude and a government powerless to improve their lot. For each country, its largest potential markets would be the US, China and India, whose wealth would place each state in the same trading position as a small business that trades with a multi-national. In short, we should get paid when and if they felt like it, and only then if we said and did the right thing according to their lights. If we didn't like it, to whom would we turn as arbiter? Or would we send our one remaining gunboat?

 

No, I think we should eventually see the light and re-invent the EU, or something very close to it. :-) Like them or not, there are very compelling reasons why the EU exists. It was not invented by fools, for their own personal aggrandisement: it is the product, however imperfect, of necessity.

[CliveH]

Brian Kirby - 2011-11-11 6:36 PM

 

..................It was not invented by fools, for their own personal aggrandisement: it is the product, however imperfect, of necessity.

 

 

But Brian - when you look at other trading blocks in the world (See list - you do not see the aggrandisement of them wanting a "President" of the combined member states. You do not see the crazy experiment of shoe-horning together disparate countries into one economic currency.

 

You do not see a separate grandiose parliament that sits in two places in a year and costs £billions to do so with MEP’s costing the system even more £billions whilst the real power sits with an unelected body of commissioners.

 

What other trading blocs are there? Well here’s a list by type:-

 

Economic & Monetary Union

 

EU: Europen union

CEMC: Economic And Monetary community of central America

OECS: Organization of Eastern Caribbean States

UEMOA: West African Economic & monetary union

Common Market (» Free movement of all factors of production)

 

CACM: Central American Common Market

CAN: Common Andean Community

CCCM: Caribbean Community & Common Market

EEA: European Economic Area

Customs Union ( Free trade within the area, and common national trade

policies with outsiders ( no need for customs inspectors))

 

EAC: East African Community

EAEC: East Asian Economic Caucus

EUCU: European Union Custom Union

GCC: Gulf Cooperation Counsel

Free-Trade Area (Free trade within the area, but separate national trade

policies with outsiders (need for customs inspectors))

 

European Free Trade Area (EFTA, 1960)

Latin American Free Trade Area (LAFTA, 1960, deceased 1969)

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN, 1976)

North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA, 1994)

……………………………………………..

 

Not one of these common interest groups have the POLITICAL agenda for its own Aggrandisement as exemplified by the Eurozone as we see it today.

And do not forget I am a great believer in Europe – I think the benefit of having a higher authority to call on when our numpty laws conflict with common sense.

 

But the reality of what politicians grand designs have brought us to is beginning to hit home- These two articles from the “Pinks” :-

 

 

 

France plots eurozone 'breakaway group'

11 Nov 2011 | 07:30

Investment Week

Categories: Economics / Markets

Topics: Eurozone

 

France is drawing up plans to create a breakaway organisation of eurozone countries with its own treaty, parliament and headquarters.

 

The proposal would see a formal "union within a union" created, but would lessen Britain's influence in Europe, according to the Telegraph.

 

Prime Minister David Cameron is believed to be drawing up urgent plans to stop Britain being "railroaded" into agreeing to decisions taken by the new eurozone bloc.

 

Weaker countries such as Greece could even be barred from the new eurozone, under radical suggestions from some parties.

 

Speaking yesterday, Merkel insisted Germany would not support a smaller eurozone.

"We have a single goal and it is to stabilise the eurozone as it is today, to make it more competitive, to make progress in balancing budgets," she said.

 

Michael Meister, the Bundestag finance spokesman for Merkel's Christian Democrats, said "such a shrinking process would be deadly for Germany".

 

The talks come amid growing concerns that France could be the next nation to become embroiled in the single currency crisis.

 

Greece has now installed a new prime minister - Lucas Papademos, a former central banker - and the country is expected to unveil its national unity government today.

 

...................................

 

Artemis’ Foster questions German commitment to eurozone

11 Nov 2011 | 15:00

Dan Jones

Categories: Investment

Topics: Artemis | Germany | Europe

 

Artemis’ James Foster has challenged Germany’s appetite to stay in the eurozone in its current form after another tumultuous week of market activity.

 

Concerns over Italy's stability briefly pushed yields on its 10-year government debt to 7.4% earlier this week and strengthened the case for European Central Bank intervention via either increased bond buying or quantitative easing.

 

But Foster, manager of the £542m Artemis Strategic Bond fund, said the central bank's next move remained dependent on German sentiment - and questioned whether Germany still had faith in the eurozone itself.

 

"My belief two weeks ago would have been 100% that the Germans would say ‘we do not want this, but it is what we have to do to keep the euro going.' But a lot of the noises of late make you doubt that. German chancellor Angela Merkel has been very naughty in some of her comments," he said.

Reports emerged this week that France and Germany had discussed the possibility of a ‘core' eurozone, days after the pair had suggested for the first time that Greece may leave the bloc. Foster said even this strategy would be problematic if Italy's problems worsened.

 

"If Italy goes, then putting a firewall around France would be a very expensive business. In normal circumstances you would expect France to have to pull out if Italy went."

 

Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and Greek prime minister George Papandreou are stepping down to be replaced by national unity governments as the dust settles on this week's developments, but Foster said the new regimes' effectiveness would be limited given the two countries' debt profiles.

 

"The question will eventually have be put to Germany directly: do you want to do this? If they do not it is likely to cause mass civil disobedience across Europe.

 

"You still have to believe they will back the eurozone in the end because otherwise the consequences will be disastrous," he acknowledged.

........................................

 

My thoughts on the last sentence - is that we do not "have to believe" anything!

 

What we have to do is what is right - not what is the current politicaly expedient numpty nonsense.

 

Doing that has got us into the disasterous position we and Europe are in now 8-)

[Brian Kirby]

But then, on a quick scan, none of those other organisations seem truly equate to the EU, either in terms of their combined wealth, their collective record on warring, their complexity, or their age, either collectively or individually, and a few seem barely to be functioning.

 

How does one construct a trading block among such diverse economies as the 27 European states, 17 of which presently use the Euro as their currency, without a forum for amicably settling disputes? I truly do not see how that could be done. The EU has evolved from the ECSC (itself designed to stop France and Germany pulling each others' hair out), it is not just a sudden, flash of inspiration, invention. To me, is path is inevitable, and logical. For such a block to work, it seems to me, it must have a better means of arriving at decisions than the various representatives of 27 states trying to arrive at decisions that all can, and will, sign up to. If anything has demonstrated that, it is surely the past few weeks of lost opportunities while the hubris got the better of the judgements - or ignorance prevailed in the face of knowledge (decide as inclined! :-)).

 

They sat and talked, and talked, and talked, and the urgency mounted, and they talked, and they talked until, in the end the world and its markets lost confidence and/or patience, and the European heads of state found, rather like the fabled Emperor, that they had no clothes. The problem is that none of the national politicians is prepared to cede to the centre the power that is necessary for effective decision making because, were they to do so, they would all become second tier politicians, and they don't want to drop to that level. I think we have reached a genuine watershed where either the Euro survives, and the EU with it, or we shall see the Euro abandoned, possibly by a thousand cuts, and the EU begin to fall apart. I really do not think either of the latter would be in anyone's interest and, before you ask, no, I do not (and nor would I expect to), have the faintest glimmer of an idea idea how either can be averted. Far cleverer people than me are flummoxed, so I agree with them!

 

It seems clear to me that, just as the banks were "too big to fail", and had to be bailed out through taxation, so the measures imposed by the logic of finance may prove impossible to impose on reluctant populations. If countries really become ungovernable the strictures of governments and banks will count for nothing, they will default totally, and the waves created will spread a long way. This is not really an economic problem, it is primarily a political problem that has been created by certain politicians in certain countries while others, who should have had greater sense, looked on. It is a slow motion car crash, and there seems no forecasting where, or how, it will end. However, whatever the political fallout, the major impact will be economic, and I think its impact may be very widespread. That will inevitably result in recriminations, and those will colour international relations of all kinds for years. I think the best present hope is that the "markets" also see this danger, and draw back from the brink before they bring the temple down on their own heads - but, they had a similar opportunity when the rotten CDOs were first identified, and went for the kill instead. Best maxim? Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst - if you can envisage what that may be!

 

Who was that wag who said "Europe is too technical for the politicians, and too political for the technicians"? Shrewd observation that! :-)

[CliveH]

OK Brian - but to get back to the nub of what you say - and I quote the paragraph that I think (?) sums up what you are saying (?) -

 

"No, I think we should eventually see the light and re-invent the EU, or something very close to it. Like them or not, there are very compelling reasons why the EU exists. It was not invented by fools, for their own personal aggrandisement: it is the product, however imperfect, of necessity."

 

And with much of what you say I agree with - however:-

 

""No, I think we should eventually see the light and re-invent the EU, or something very close to it." - Here we are almost in complete agreement - I think the EU as a trading bloc should exist.

 

"Like them or not, there are very compelling reasons why the EU exists" -

 

I think a Common Market is justifiable - but the political monster that the EU has become? - I see no rationale for that.

 

"It was not invented by fools, for their own personal aggrandisement: it is the product, however imperfect, of necessity"

 

If you mean the original Common Market trading bloc - then I agree.

 

But if you are talking about what the politicians have managed to morph a simple trading bloc into over the last couple of decades is monumentally foolish. I think the mess that has resulted that commits vast numbers of people and populations within Europe to austerity programmes is not just foolish but damn dangerous - it mirrors the stupidity of the 1930's.

 

And the fools that have overseen this politicisation of a simple trading bloc ideal are guilty of aggrandisement on an awesomely grand scale!

 

What other centre of "government" has two centres that are each used for 6 mths of the year with the £Billions wasted twice a year when the whole lot migrates from one to the other? What other example of monumental aggrandisement and foolishness could there possibly be?

 

But let me answer that one - I would suggest running an organisation that is in charge of the fiscal wellbeing of its member states but for which its own accounts have not been signed off for nearly two decades (!!!!) is most likely to be an equally good example of the aggrandisement and foolishness of the EU as we currently experience it.

 

And you cannot dismiss the trading blocs cited because they "do not equate to the EU" (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

That is surely the point!! - They are trading blocs and successful ones in the main. In contrast we have a Eurozone in crisis with many of the member states effectively bankrupt.

 

The fact that they "do not equate to the EU" - is a positive advantage for them IMO.

 

[Brian Kirby]

Then, we shall have to agree to disagree. :-)

 

I believe the simple trading block you crave could not exist without a sufficient bureaucracy to harmonise its standards to the mutual benefit of its peoples. The alternative to that, it seem to me, would simply be a crude race to the bottom with most people losing out, and no recourse to any greater authority. The origins of the EU span far longer than two decades, in fact back to 1951, so almost exactly six decades. Over that time it has evolved, along lines the various member states have decided upon. You say morph, but I prefer evolve, because it is less pejorative. It is what it is because its members have so willed it and, over the period you cite, it has had the UK in there, for the most part with a veto it could have exercised. So, whereas there are aspects of it that I think overbearing, it has been voted into its present form by those we elected to do the job. That is just the present version of Western democracy at work, like it, or lump it! :-)

 

There are really no European politicians, though there are some with European vision, because the governments of the member states have never agreed to relinquish power to the European parliament, so that it can appoint ministers to exercise such power. That, IMO, is the democratic deficit at its heart, and is part of the reason the Euro-bureaucrats have relatively greater powers than civil servants in national governments. This is an unsatisfactory fudge but, as above, it seems to be what can presently be achieved.

 

The two centre parliament is an expensive farce, but it is not a reason to decry the whole edifice. Given the will, and with a bit of dented pride here, and humility there, it could easily be given one home. I don't disagree therefore, but would sooner get it fixed, and give it some proper powers.

 

Yes, the failure to sign-off the accounts is a disgrace. If the parliament had proper powers that could doubtless be resolved, indeed I think many MEPs have been trying to achieve that in the absence of proper powers. One day, maybe, but surely not a reason to leave, or pull the house down?

 

Those other trading blocks? Which would you pick as equivalent to the EU? Which has in the order of 27 member states. Which of them has the economic size and power equivalent to that of the EU?

 

Before we joined the EEC, we belonged to EFTA, the rump of which still exists. EFTA was dreamt up as a foil to the EEC, and was widely interpreted (with some justification!) by the members of the EEC as a spoiling tactic by Britain to prevent the EEC gaining superior trading power. When it came to the crunch, we joined the EEC, and decided in favour of what we had, originally, rather despised. History will judge.

 

But, EFTA aside, are those other trading blocks really any more that groupings of weak, and in a number of cases truly impoverished, economies? You will reasonably say, yes some are. But then look at those. Some comprise one large prosperous state with a number of surrounding, satellite, states gaining access to the larger market. Some have a natural resource at the heart of the block, so share a common interest in that. Of the remainder, their raison d'etre seems to be to defend themselves rather than to grow. So, without having delved deeply, I can't see anything that equates to the EU in terms of complexity, economic wealth, technological and industrial assets, intellectual assets, healthcare, education, financial services, political sophistication, general good governance, generally settled, tried and tested, democratic institutions, and a civil service that is generally free from the vices of cronyism and bribery. So, to me, it is inevitable that Europe will have had to evolve considerably more complex institutions, to manage its considerably greater complexity.

 

We should also remember, IMO, that the debt crisis is not entirely limited to the Eurozone. I seem to remember that Britain, despite it reluctance to wholeheartedly buy the European idea and its insistence on retaining its so-called sovereignty, is as well mired in debt as the worst of the others, except probably Greece. So, it seems no-one has the monopoly on wisdom! If we had, I should probably agree with everything you said! :-)

[CliveH]

You missed out the Benelux countries - that was an attempt to usurp the power of the EU just like EFTA (NOT! (lol) )

 

Sorry Brian but I do not want to offend you or anyone - but once again you have thrown up a lot of information to hide behind whilst ignoring the main points.

 

Whatever the EU is now - it STARTED as a "Common Market". It has morphed into something a lot more and certainly a lot more dangerous than a Common Market Trade bloc if one section has the power to dictate to another section the austerity programmes that will cause potential conflict!

 

You say the architects are not fools

 

I say they are monumentally foolish and got the €zone seriously wrong - something that we all knew at the time given the disparate nature of the economies making up the political dream.

 

You say the architects of the €zone do not seek aggrandisement but you ignore the waste, the lack of credible accounts or even COMPLETED accounts and the idea of an EU President under subservient states all sharing the same currency when those states were once sovereign states in their own right.

 

And yes - it could be the most powerful trading block in the world - and I believe it would have been but for the very foolish aggrandisement nonsense’s you try to dismiss as " an unsatisfactory fudge" whilst trying to convince us that all would be OK if only we could see our way to :-

 

"give it some proper powers".

 

You go onto say that "Yes, the failure to sign-off the accounts is a disgrace. If the parliament had proper powers that could doubtless be resolved, indeed I think many MEPs have been trying to achieve that in the absence of proper powers.

 

Wow! - all the problems we now face due to a foolish experiment that could never work and the answer is to give the silly numpties that set up the debacle MORE power?

 

Of course – silly me .

 

*-)

[Dave225]

We are going to have to restrict the length of Posts methinks. By the time I had worked all the way through this lot, I had forgotten what was at the beginning. There was a lot of it I agreed with but probably as much I disagreed with, but trying to find the appropriate sentences is too much of a hassle.

 

From what i have recalled, Germany has indeed been a 'bully boy' by demanding that other countires follow their codeof conduct without having any regard to the totally different nature of those countries. Both Germany and France were the drivers of expansion of the EU as Chirac for one felt it was the best way to get something big enough to argue against the US, as he hated them being top dog. Germany also wanted a captive market. Germany can indeed sort the current problems by allowing the ECB to underpin the countries which only a short time ago it declared were its best friends. They certainly have the cash that they made from selling at cheaper prices to the very countries they now state are prolifigate. They are also scared of any break up as tis will make their currency, whatever it is, rise and they will become uncompetitive. There is an answer to that, cut your wages and costs, but they do not wish to do that. Far better to screw others to the wall, and create a situation similar to the 30's all over again.

 

The idea that the EU must survive is nonsense. It was created by unelected people who had a thirst for power, and has proven to be probably the most uneconomic system ever devised by mad people. It is countries that survive due to the natural abilities of their populace. The UK managed perfectly well for almost 99% of its history without the EU, and it is only during the last few decades or so that we have allowed ourselves to be dictated to, and run down all our own skills just to suit them.

[Guest pelmetman]

The sooner the euro goes t*ts up the better:D....... then we can start dismantling Brussels;-) 

[Brian Kirby]

Then, to Clive, and to both Daves, I just say we shall have to agree to disagree. :-)

 

I don't think I am hiding behind alternative information to ignore Clive's main points, I just don't agree that his main points are the main points. I agree the Euro was flawed in implementation, not because the concept is unworkable, but because countries that cheated to gain acceptance were allowed in. What message did that give? It was foolish, as we can all now see. But the Euro is not the EU, or the EEC, and my comment was not about those who implemented the Euro, but those who had the vision of this common European Community. It never was called a market, common or otherwise, it was always called a community, latterly a union.

 

I have considerable sympathy with the idea of giving the US a tougher time. It cheats like hell with trade and preaches the opposite. It is healthy to have a fully developed economic block to counter its economic power. Without that it can merely play divide and rule among those who want access to its markets, and can dictate the terms on which that will happen. Less so now that it needs China to keep it afloat, and it may even become necessary for the EU and the US to develop joint strategies for dealing with China's trading tactics.

 

Finally, on the point about powers and who wields them. How, then, would power be exercised among the European states, if not through a central administration of some sort? You appear to be saying one could run a free trade agreement among 27 differing states with no common administration. How would anything be agreed? What would be the mechanism for deciding, for example, whether electrical goods manufactured elsewhere in Europe should be sold in the UK? And how should UK manufacturers of electrical goods gain access to the markets of the other 26 states? What if we considered that, for example, Germany was applying non-tariff barriers against our goods by changing DIN standards in ways that gave them advantage? Who would examine those complaints, and who would determine right or wrong?

 

This all sounds like a journey back to the 60's, when multiple versions of goods had to be made, at considerable cost, to suit different markets. It was to overcome the disadvantages of that chaos that many of the EEC directives, and the means by which they are agreed and issued, were invented. Do we really want, as you seem to, to go back there? That, it seems to me, could only diminish trade, to the considerable disadvantage of all.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2011-11-12 7:22 PM This all sounds like a journey back to the 60's, when multiple versions of goods had to be made, at considerable cost, to suit different markets. It was to overcome the disadvantages of that chaos that many of the EEC directives, and the means by which they are agreed and issued, were invented.

You have a point there Brian;-)...........but I dare say China will rise to the challenge*-)

[teflon2]

Brian I don't know how accurate Wickpedia is but it says I quote Common market in the English speaking world renamed the E.C. in1993. As we live in the English speaking world it seems to me we were sold a pup as a common market is not a union. Well not where I live anyway. John (!)

[RogerC]

What a lot of 'in depth' replies....

 

So we have an EU body of elected and unelected persons 'in power'. Isn't interesting to note that not so many years ago those that wished to enter into politics or positions of public service were 'in office'? A subtle change which perhaps reveals the mindset of those people today.

 

So far the EU generally(and this list is a microcosm of it's failures) has been responsible for or has brought into being:

 

Profligate spending of our money.

Un-audited/non auditable accounts running into trillions.

Unelected bureaucrats dictating to sovereign nations.

A deeply flawed 'single currency'.

A political elite dictating to other nations.

Intrusions on the laws and liberties of citizens of member states.

 

It all sounds like a 'dictatorship' in the making......

 

Yes in theory the coming together of many nations to trade and allow free movement is laudable but there is 'in my opinion' a huge flaw in the whole system. Until 'all' nations have the same level of pricing(contained within the faltering Euro?), taxation, wages, production costs, social services/health care systems, the same laws etc (essentially a level playing field) then the system is doomed to failure. I, for one can never see that happening.

 

As it stands richer nations will always be 'top dog' dictating to the poorer nations because they can impose 'their terms and conditions' on whatever aid and assistance the poorer nations are in need of. Currently that is cash....and lots of it.

 

In essence and ideology communism is the purest form of governance/lifestyle with everyone 'equal' but it has never, and will never work because of the mindset of mankind. We all strive to better ourselves in terms of fiscal security, position in society and lifestyle..... ergo communism fails.

 

'ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS'

[CliveH]

Dave225 - 2011-11-12 4:55 PM

 

We are going to have to restrict the length of Posts methinks. By the time I had worked all the way through this lot, I had forgotten what was at the beginning. There was a lot of it I agreed with but probably as much I disagreed with, but trying to find the appropriate sentences is too much of a hassle.

 

From what i have recalled, Germany has indeed been a 'bully boy' by demanding that other countires follow their codeof conduct without having any regard to the totally different nature of those countries. Both Germany and France were the drivers of expansion of the EU as Chirac for one felt it was the best way to get something big enough to argue against the US, as he hated them being top dog. Germany also wanted a captive market. Germany can indeed sort the current problems by allowing the ECB to underpin the countries which only a short time ago it declared were its best friends. They certainly have the cash that they made from selling at cheaper prices to the very countries they now state are prolifigate. They are also scared of any break up as tis will make their currency, whatever it is, rise and they will become uncompetitive. There is an answer to that, cut your wages and costs, but they do not wish to do that. Far better to screw others to the wall, and create a situation similar to the 30's all over again.

 

The idea that the EU must survive is nonsense. It was created by unelected people who had a thirst for power, and has proven to be probably the most uneconomic system ever devised by mad people. It is countries that survive due to the natural abilities of their populace. The UK managed perfectly well for almost 99% of its history without the EU, and it is only during the last few decades or so that we have allowed ourselves to be dictated to, and run down all our own skills just to suit them.

 

Yep! Agree with that.

 

That said - I still say that the Common Market is a good thing - as is our ability to refer some of our frankly bizarre and crazy legal interprtetations here in the UK to a higher court.