Michael James
The EU is likely to break up argues Michael James because of the Euro. EU cannot allow countries to write off their debt, because the German government canât afford to give up pretending that its loans will be repaid: the moment it admitted that Germany was in fact the EUâs milch cow, it would face a taxpayersâ revolt. The EU rightly urges the bailed-out states to reform their economies, but the short-term political and economic costs of reform are greatly magnified in states that canât devalue their currency. A successor to the EU should be a new European association of independent states dealing directly with one another, not an incipient super-state. Michael James full report can be read on our REPORTS page
The European Union aspires to replace Europeansâ allegiance to their nation states with an overarching European identity that will end Europeâs tendency to tear itself apart with aggressive nationalism and bring about permanent continental peace. Its chosen instrument is a set of supranational institutions that promotes âever closer unionâ among the peoples of Europe by periodic transfers of power from the member states to the union.
The project has failed. Europeans do subscribe to a continental identity but continue to give their primary allegiance to their nation states. Consequently the growing powers of the EU (along with its deliberate lack of accountability, reflecting its distrust of democracy) lack legitimacy. Not only have the British voted to leave the EU but Eurosceptic parties have emerged in most member states to defend national sovereignty, and they are steadily gaining ground. Opinion polls in Europe show a pattern of sentiment similar to that which the referendum of 2016 revealed in the UK: elites strongly favour the EU, but popular majorities or pluralities in most countries favour the return of some powers to member states; thereâs little popular support, and only limited elite support, for âever closer unionâ.
The central paradox of the European Union is that it tries to âintegrateâ or âharmoniseâ Europe with centrally imposed uniform institutions and regulations, but these generate tensions between member states because these states face widely differing circumstances. The EUâs costly social, environmental and labour-market regulations protect the richer member states of the north and west of Europe from competition from the poorer member states of the south and east, which are less able to afford them. Above all, the euro has sharply divided Europe between debtor and creditor members of the Eurozone. Before it was adopted many economists argued that a single exchange rate would prove to be too low for the richer countries and too high for the poorer ones, so distorting trade patterns. As well, if the Eurozone countries were at different phases of the business cycle, a single interest rate would be too low for booming economies and too high for those in recession, and so it would pull Europeâs economies apart, not push them together. Abundant evidence backing up these warnings was available from the German monetary union that accompanied national reunification in 1990, since it inflicted an excessively high exchange rate on the relatively poor eastern area of Germany and mired it in a deep recession for years. The consequent huge subsidies from West to East and mass migration from East to West for years generated popular disillusionment with reunification.
But the European Union doesnât accept that it can get anything wrong, and when the Eurozone was overwhelmed by the global financial crisis in 2010 the EUâs bail-out of the bankrupt member states was designed primarily to defend the euro. These states experienced exceptionally severe recessions largely because they could not devalue their currency. The EU cannot sanction even a temporary departure of bailed-out states from the Eurozone to help them recover, since that could easily trigger the disintegration of the monetary union. But nor can the EU allow them to write off any off their debt, because the German government (the main source of bail-out funds) canât afford to give up pretending that its loans will be repaid: the moment it admitted that Germany was in fact the EUâs milch cow, it would face a taxpayersâ revolt. The EU rightly urges the bailed-out states to reform their economies, but the short-term political and economic costs of reform are greatly magnified in states that canât devalue their currency.
Franceâs President Macron, supported by the European Commission, proposes to bolster monetary union with a fiscal union in which the budgetary powers of the Eurozone member states would be centralised and money would be redistributed from richer to poorer states as automatically as it is from richer to poorer regions within states. Germany and other north European states resist this âtransfer unionâ because they know their taxpayers would not agree to finance open-ended subsidies to poorer states. Yet without fiscal union the euro remains vulnerable to future economic recessions; Italyâs economy is especially precarious because it is both deep in debt and too big to bail out. But the EU refuses to contemplate a new Italian national currency being launched to circulate alongside the euro, as some Italian political parties have proposed.
Yet if the European Union were to break up, many of the motives that prompted the nations of Europe to form or join the union would persist. The post-war reconciliation between Germany and France would surely survive. The Italians would still believe they were not much good at self-government and would welcome any outside help they could get. Greece, Spain and Portugal have within living memory been military dictatorships, and they would still welcome the additional legitimacy their young democratic systems derive from a European association. The east European countries would still want to offset the influence of their big Russian neighbour by strengthening their ties with western Europe. The small European countries would still appreciate the status they derive from being actors on a continental stage on largely equal terms with their big neighbours. Even Britain would be happy to join a European association that focused on economic cooperation and minimised any loss of political sovereignty. But, to be successful, a new European association would surely have to be one of independent states dealing directly with one another, not an incipient super-state with a mission to erode its member statesâ autonomy.
someone else is reading the right stuff.
Now @Brianjones needs to read that site and heâll see the EU is doomed, as well as how the EU set itself up on this path by Not consolidating debt on the federal level, like the US.
I woke up, checked my notifications and found out that basically the Eu is good because it prevents Hungary from protecting its borders and reopening concentration camps for Jews.
I donât even like coffee, but I think I may need one.
Yes have a strong one, you need to snap back to reality.
Actually in the case of Hungary you would realise itâs a pretty apt thing to talk about especially when they bring an anti foreigner anti immigrant anti human rights bill into their parliament and call it after a Jewish Hungarian who was very fortunate to survive the genocide. Thatâs pretty twisted.
Their prime minister wants to breed pure Hungarians âŚJust read the article posted âŚAnd protect the nation from foreigners and non Christians and gays and single mothers and lawyers and whatever else group they can hate on.
So thatâs absolutely fine, they can piss right off out of the EU, nobody asked them to stay if they donât like it . Whats holding them back. Stop taking EU subsidies , stop enjoying free trade and work rights in rest of EU.
We will see how they fare. Hurry the hell up and leave.
Regarding the leaks coming out.
It goes towards the right direction trying to establish major refugee camps outside of Europe, but unfortunately (and it is not difficult to project otherwise) NO north African country is willing to cooperate on such an idea.
At least a very logical proposal is that it is planned that every refugee can only receive any financial support only in that country where they will be registered. That would eliminate the inner EU travel to get to their dream-destination.
That being in mind maybe would bring Italy, Spain, Greece and France to the conclusion not to register at all and just organising them transportation out of the country.
Anyway, personally I donât see any solution at all. At least Europe still is acting HUMAN, look at Trump and doing his way imprisoning children.
Sorry m9, not only is there already a thread for retarded narratives about Trump, but that narrative is already old news. You need to get on a new outrage train.
I think part of the issue is that , yes Europe has acted more â Humanâ . If the minority of Immigrants who donât act human weâre ejected , maybe things would be easier . Integration is the key to successfully integrating immigrants . To be fair , that is more difficult when ideologies differ so greatly . Such mass immigration , most of which is Economic , has to be carefully planned .
Many of the migrants donât do anything positive for the country. It wasnât like say the Chinese, Italian immigrants that came to the US and built communities with businesses and added cultural value.
Countries I saw like Italy is flooded with migrants (from certain countries and cultures) just hassling me for money, food, for flooding areas like train stations trying to âhelpâ you or crowding cultural sites bothering you selling you âfreeâ information. I canât even walk out the grocery without one of them offering to help me bring like 2 bags of stuff for money. Most of them canât even speak the language and the schools there arenât even equipped to help them.
The vast majority of them have basically 0% chances of being employed anywhere and end up:
a) Being maintained by taxpayers money just for being alive
b) Accepting illegal jobs below minimum salary
c) Begging for money
d) Joining a criminal gang
The lucky ones are picked for public services, usually road cleaning or rubbish collection. They basically serve as the token:âYou see? They integrate perfectly!!1 How will racists ever recover??â, ignoring the fact that itâs still taxpayers money and it occupies a position that could be filled by any local unemployed person.
I think one or two years ago there were some stats from Germany according to which 70 to 80% of ââârefugeesâ"" after three years were still unemployed and not looking for a job because the free cash was still higher than a salary back in their country.
Lot of these countries and cities are heavily relied on tourists. I hated how every site was just packed with begging migrants annoying me and being an eye sore. Walking around the ally ways of Venice was suppose to be romantic, until every corner you turn another person comes up and annoy you for money. They ruin the whole thing. At least learn a skill, I hate looking at physically capable and relatively young men coming up to beg. Itâs one thing if they are like handicapped or maybe got some skills like singing. They just walk up to you with their hands rubbing their tummies and making a signs they want money for food. Canât even speak the local language.
I think I only began seeing beggars as I moved down south. I saw only one in Venice, and like maybe a stand or two selling cheap souvenirs by blacks.
Or perhaps times have changed.
They were everywhere not just in major cities and tourist spots. We stay in the country side in Tuscany and in the town we stay at. I hate the moment when we walk out the grocery and a guy is always there asking to help bring it to our car for money. It sucks for tourists and I can imagine itâs super annoying for people from there.
The Path to Hell is often paved with good intentionsâŚ
the problem with those eastern eu countries such as hungary, poland isnât their immigration/refugee policy, thatâs an issue left for debating. but the corruption, the deconstruction of checks and balances and the decline of the freedom of the press, thatâs the real issue, that the eu cannot tolerate.
imo, merkel is done, she doesnât look like sheâs got the energy to stay for another 3-4 years. but macron is only in for a year and shows a lot of ambition with good ideas, i donât know why so many think negatively of him. what has hollande or sarkozy achieved in their reigning days? iâd say give him the credit and see what heâs able to change.
The Liberals/EU can not tolerate any opposing views and the Media is hiding the reality.Any opposition is deemed to be Right wing or Racist Opinion. A small percentage may well be but the majority are average citizens who are sick of it.
Why ? Because the proportion of the EU who are not supporters of these Globalist policies are tired of these views and failed policies being forced upon them and are now deciding to make themselves heard. Macron is just trying more of the same medicine. It has not worked, but why donât we keep on down the same path?
We are seeing already in many other Countries a strong pushback BECAUSE nobody would listenâŚand you want more of the same. Within 12 months you will see quite a few Member states reject their Governments . Look at the polls now.
Probably because he seems like the typical out-of-touch rich politician you see everywhere.
you didnât reply to my statement at all. it is a fact that the ruling government in poland and hungary are trying to minimize the influence of independent media and judiciary and widen the executive power for their own good to do as they please, hence the increase of corruption.
you donât even know what i want, but you already assume itâŚok
you donât get my point. i am all for stricter border control, immigration policy, because i believe uncontrolled immigration leads to unpredictable outcomes.
but i am not a paranoid conspirer who believes western media all follow the same agenda and therefore i can only trust those good olâ ex-soviet all-white boys. man, if orban got a deal with letâs say any african country as sweet as the euâs, heâd be dancing with the zulus and talking about the white devil aka eu.