Is the end nigh for the Euro? [vol. 2]
Discussion
LongQ said:
Would that be a solution or a huge can kick?
That depends if you think the end is nigh for the euro or not, a question that on p482 vol.2 seems to be somewhat unanswered.Stefan will no doubt be along to tell us that the insolvent states are still insolvent and the whole thing must fail, in which case Hollande is merely kicking the can again.
Personally I think the euro will succeed, however we are currently in a very damaging intermediary stage where Europe is neither a collection of nations or a superstate, what I think of as Frankenstein Europe, a monster that's eating its own economies to survive.
If Europe is to become a functioning superstate then a federal government and central bank are absolutely part of the solution. In this respect I think Hollande is to be applauded for being the First major politician to stop fannying about with stability mechanisms and other sticking plasters.
He is calling for an endgame that can function in the long term, which IMO is quite refreshing and also throws in to relief Merkel's duplicitous bullcarp about 'more Europe' while insisting the German taxpayer won't be on the hook for it.
The other 'uncomfortable' fact for Germany is that (currently at least) France is their largest export market: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEc...
Tartan Pixie said:
If Europe is to become a functioning superstate then a federal government and central bank are absolutely part of the solution. In this respect I think Hollande is to be applauded for being the First major politician to stop fannying about with stability mechanisms and other sticking plasters.
This has always been the endgame for the Eurocrats. I have heard Delors say that the Euro was designed to create a crisis that would force the next stage of integration - fiscal and political union.The problem is that no-one has ever voted for this.
Tartan Pixie said:
1 - Leave the euro and destroy their manufacturing base with an appreciating deutschmark, potentially risking a collapse of the euro which would wipe trillions off the balance sheets of northern banks as southern countries devalue and repatriate debt. (While simultaneously becoming the most hated nation in Europe for being unwilling to make sacrifices after every one else has suffered.)
You've missed out option 1a;leave the EZ for the Sterling Zone!
Art0ir said:
I think a federalised eurozone would work.
The question 1a, at what price? 1b, is it a price worth paying? 1c, will 500 million people agree? 2, what are the long term prospects like with a proud Maoist on the reins?
It would work for sure. But as you say, getting a majority to vote for it is another question. It's that or bust though.The question 1a, at what price? 1b, is it a price worth paying? 1c, will 500 million people agree? 2, what are the long term prospects like with a proud Maoist on the reins?
rovermorris999 said:
Art0ir said:
I think a federalised eurozone would work.
The question 1a, at what price? 1b, is it a price worth paying? 1c, will 500 million people agree? 2, what are the long term prospects like with a proud Maoist on the reins?
It would work for sure. But as you say, getting a majority to vote for it is another question. It's that or bust though.The question 1a, at what price? 1b, is it a price worth paying? 1c, will 500 million people agree? 2, what are the long term prospects like with a proud Maoist on the reins?
vodkalolly said:
Globs said:
They normally solve that problem by bypassing the voting requirements.
Didn't we just celebrate fighting a war against that?Oh and they had a bit of a white supremacy thing going.
The EU is entirely different, being international socialists from Brussels actually taking over and ruling us from afar.
They appear to have a whites only movement thing going with the immigration rules.
See?
Globs said:
vodkalolly said:
Globs said:
They normally solve that problem by bypassing the voting requirements.
Didn't we just celebrate fighting a war against that?Oh and they had a bit of a white supremacy thing going.
The EU is entirely different, being international socialists from Brussels actually taking over and ruling us from afar.
They appear to have a whites only movement thing going with the immigration rules.
See?
ds?When that interminable spanner Bob Crow is singing from the same hymn sheet as the tory right on exiting the EU then something must be deeply amiss with EU democracy. I'd quite like to see him sharing a platform with David Davis or someone similar just to watch the body language as they try and agree on something. 
Despite this I can't see the quasi communist setup lasting long term. The Lisbon treaty is quite clear about the primacy of national governments and, despite all the bellyaching, EU laws still need to be enacted at a national level, moreover, in the world of real politik sovereignty ultimately lies with whoever controls the army and police.
The Germans have already used Lisbon as a defence against eurobonds, saying a treaty change would be required. Same goes for a combined European defence force, even Hollande's little plan for a euro economic government is unlikely to be viable under Lisbon. In short, there must be a treaty change in the near future.
IMO whatever comes after Lisbon will be the political battleground that decides the future of Europe. Any treaty that proposes a genuine move of sovereignty from nation states to the EU will not be the rubber stamp job that Lisbon was, as the French would be sharpening their guillotines just as the German courts would be sharpening their pencils. With the UK political left slowly joining the anti-EU bandwagon there's an ice cube's chance in hell of the UK signing up to such a treaty if all it's offering is more Barroso.
For this reason I think we'll see an elected European president before the next treaty change. There was calls for this last year and Martin Schulz is already moving things in that direction.
Once democracy has been established the fiscal reigns of the ECB can be loosened to create a fresh credit bubble and all of sudden a treaty enshrining Europe as a nation becomes a far more attractive proposition, as it will be a democratic nation receiving the fruits of years of austerity. Provided people have money in their pocket at the time of the next treaty change I suspect that many will forget that the politicians magnanimously proclaiming to have solved Europe's problems are the same people who created those problems.
Perhaps others read the tea leaves differently, certainly ArtOir accused me of living on a different planet for espousing thie above view in a different thread, however I suspect that by the time we get a UK referendum both Lisbon and the democratic issue will be history.
Despite this I can't see the quasi communist setup lasting long term. The Lisbon treaty is quite clear about the primacy of national governments and, despite all the bellyaching, EU laws still need to be enacted at a national level, moreover, in the world of real politik sovereignty ultimately lies with whoever controls the army and police.
The Germans have already used Lisbon as a defence against eurobonds, saying a treaty change would be required. Same goes for a combined European defence force, even Hollande's little plan for a euro economic government is unlikely to be viable under Lisbon. In short, there must be a treaty change in the near future.
IMO whatever comes after Lisbon will be the political battleground that decides the future of Europe. Any treaty that proposes a genuine move of sovereignty from nation states to the EU will not be the rubber stamp job that Lisbon was, as the French would be sharpening their guillotines just as the German courts would be sharpening their pencils. With the UK political left slowly joining the anti-EU bandwagon there's an ice cube's chance in hell of the UK signing up to such a treaty if all it's offering is more Barroso.
For this reason I think we'll see an elected European president before the next treaty change. There was calls for this last year and Martin Schulz is already moving things in that direction.
Once democracy has been established the fiscal reigns of the ECB can be loosened to create a fresh credit bubble and all of sudden a treaty enshrining Europe as a nation becomes a far more attractive proposition, as it will be a democratic nation receiving the fruits of years of austerity. Provided people have money in their pocket at the time of the next treaty change I suspect that many will forget that the politicians magnanimously proclaiming to have solved Europe's problems are the same people who created those problems.
Perhaps others read the tea leaves differently, certainly ArtOir accused me of living on a different planet for espousing thie above view in a different thread, however I suspect that by the time we get a UK referendum both Lisbon and the democratic issue will be history.
Tartan Pixie said:
When that interminable spanner Bob Crow is singing from the same hymn sheet as the tory right on exiting the EU then something must be deeply amiss with EU democracy. I'd quite like to see him sharing a platform with David Davis or someone similar just to watch the body language as they try and agree on something.
Despite this I can't see the quasi communist setup lasting long term. The Lisbon treaty is quite clear about the primacy of national governments and, despite all the bellyaching, EU laws still need to be enacted at a national level, moreover, in the world of real politik sovereignty ultimately lies with whoever controls the army and police.
The Germans have already used Lisbon as a defence against eurobonds, saying a treaty change would be required. Same goes for a combined European defence force, even Hollande's little plan for a euro economic government is unlikely to be viable under Lisbon. In short, there must be a treaty change in the near future.
IMO whatever comes after Lisbon will be the political battleground that decides the future of Europe. Any treaty that proposes a genuine move of sovereignty from nation states to the EU will not be the rubber stamp job that Lisbon was, as the French would be sharpening their guillotines just as the German courts would be sharpening their pencils. With the UK political left slowly joining the anti-EU bandwagon there's an ice cube's chance in hell of the UK signing up to such a treaty if all it's offering is more Barroso.
For this reason I think we'll see an elected European president before the next treaty change. There was calls for this last year and Martin Schulz is already moving things in that direction.
Once democracy has been established the fiscal reigns of the ECB can be loosened to create a fresh credit bubble and all of sudden a treaty enshrining Europe as a nation becomes a far more attractive proposition, as it will be a democratic nation receiving the fruits of years of austerity. Provided people have money in their pocket at the time of the next treaty change I suspect that many will forget that the politicians magnanimously proclaiming to have solved Europe's problems are the same people who created those problems.
Perhaps others read the tea leaves differently, certainly ArtOir accused me of living on a different planet for espousing thie above view in a different thread, however I suspect that by the time we get a UK referendum both Lisbon and the democratic issue will be history.
I think that's all fairly logical bar the conclusion.Despite this I can't see the quasi communist setup lasting long term. The Lisbon treaty is quite clear about the primacy of national governments and, despite all the bellyaching, EU laws still need to be enacted at a national level, moreover, in the world of real politik sovereignty ultimately lies with whoever controls the army and police.
The Germans have already used Lisbon as a defence against eurobonds, saying a treaty change would be required. Same goes for a combined European defence force, even Hollande's little plan for a euro economic government is unlikely to be viable under Lisbon. In short, there must be a treaty change in the near future.
IMO whatever comes after Lisbon will be the political battleground that decides the future of Europe. Any treaty that proposes a genuine move of sovereignty from nation states to the EU will not be the rubber stamp job that Lisbon was, as the French would be sharpening their guillotines just as the German courts would be sharpening their pencils. With the UK political left slowly joining the anti-EU bandwagon there's an ice cube's chance in hell of the UK signing up to such a treaty if all it's offering is more Barroso.
For this reason I think we'll see an elected European president before the next treaty change. There was calls for this last year and Martin Schulz is already moving things in that direction.
Once democracy has been established the fiscal reigns of the ECB can be loosened to create a fresh credit bubble and all of sudden a treaty enshrining Europe as a nation becomes a far more attractive proposition, as it will be a democratic nation receiving the fruits of years of austerity. Provided people have money in their pocket at the time of the next treaty change I suspect that many will forget that the politicians magnanimously proclaiming to have solved Europe's problems are the same people who created those problems.
Perhaps others read the tea leaves differently, certainly ArtOir accused me of living on a different planet for espousing thie above view in a different thread, however I suspect that by the time we get a UK referendum both Lisbon and the democratic issue will be history.
I don't believe the EU is an inherently evil organisation (although I'm sure many will disagree with me), however the damage they are doing will have repercussions for a long, long time.
Every time they speak they call for more and more powers to be removed from the nation state. They've now come out and called for the end of the nation state. Absolute madness unless you're a fanatical socialist, which they are.
I see no future for democracy in the EU superstate...
Globs said:
turbobloke said:
Tartan Pixie said:
. . .
Once democracy has been established...
. . .
Fair enough given the present position, but that's stretching things too far.Once democracy has been established...
. . .
Art0ir said:
Tartan Pixie said:
When that interminable spanner Bob Crow is singing from the same hymn sheet as the tory right on exiting the EU then something must be deeply amiss with EU democracy. I'd quite like to see him sharing a platform with David Davis or someone similar just to watch the body language as they try and agree on something.
Despite this I can't see the quasi communist setup lasting long term. The Lisbon treaty is quite clear about the primacy of national governments and, despite all the bellyaching, EU laws still need to be enacted at a national level, moreover, in the world of real politik sovereignty ultimately lies with whoever controls the army and police.
The Germans have already used Lisbon as a defence against eurobonds, saying a treaty change would be required. Same goes for a combined European defence force, even Hollande's little plan for a euro economic government is unlikely to be viable under Lisbon. In short, there must be a treaty change in the near future.
IMO whatever comes after Lisbon will be the political battleground that decides the future of Europe. Any treaty that proposes a genuine move of sovereignty from nation states to the EU will not be the rubber stamp job that Lisbon was, as the French would be sharpening their guillotines just as the German courts would be sharpening their pencils. With the UK political left slowly joining the anti-EU bandwagon there's an ice cube's chance in hell of the UK signing up to such a treaty if all it's offering is more Barroso.
For this reason I think we'll see an elected European president before the next treaty change. There was calls for this last year and Martin Schulz is already moving things in that direction.
Once democracy has been established the fiscal reigns of the ECB can be loosened to create a fresh credit bubble and all of sudden a treaty enshrining Europe as a nation becomes a far more attractive proposition, as it will be a democratic nation receiving the fruits of years of austerity. Provided people have money in their pocket at the time of the next treaty change I suspect that many will forget that the politicians magnanimously proclaiming to have solved Europe's problems are the same people who created those problems.
Perhaps others read the tea leaves differently, certainly ArtOir accused me of living on a different planet for espousing thie above view in a different thread, however I suspect that by the time we get a UK referendum both Lisbon and the democratic issue will be history.
I think that's all fairly logical bar the conclusion.Despite this I can't see the quasi communist setup lasting long term. The Lisbon treaty is quite clear about the primacy of national governments and, despite all the bellyaching, EU laws still need to be enacted at a national level, moreover, in the world of real politik sovereignty ultimately lies with whoever controls the army and police.
The Germans have already used Lisbon as a defence against eurobonds, saying a treaty change would be required. Same goes for a combined European defence force, even Hollande's little plan for a euro economic government is unlikely to be viable under Lisbon. In short, there must be a treaty change in the near future.
IMO whatever comes after Lisbon will be the political battleground that decides the future of Europe. Any treaty that proposes a genuine move of sovereignty from nation states to the EU will not be the rubber stamp job that Lisbon was, as the French would be sharpening their guillotines just as the German courts would be sharpening their pencils. With the UK political left slowly joining the anti-EU bandwagon there's an ice cube's chance in hell of the UK signing up to such a treaty if all it's offering is more Barroso.
For this reason I think we'll see an elected European president before the next treaty change. There was calls for this last year and Martin Schulz is already moving things in that direction.
Once democracy has been established the fiscal reigns of the ECB can be loosened to create a fresh credit bubble and all of sudden a treaty enshrining Europe as a nation becomes a far more attractive proposition, as it will be a democratic nation receiving the fruits of years of austerity. Provided people have money in their pocket at the time of the next treaty change I suspect that many will forget that the politicians magnanimously proclaiming to have solved Europe's problems are the same people who created those problems.
Perhaps others read the tea leaves differently, certainly ArtOir accused me of living on a different planet for espousing thie above view in a different thread, however I suspect that by the time we get a UK referendum both Lisbon and the democratic issue will be history.
I don't believe the EU is an inherently evil organisation (although I'm sure many will disagree with me), however the damage they are doing will have repercussions for a long, long time.
Every time they speak they call for more and more powers to be removed from the nation state. They've now come out and called for the end of the nation state. Absolute madness unless you're a fanatical socialist, which they are.
I see no future for democracy in the EU superstate...
It does seem clear that without fundamental structural changes to the basic constitution of the EU the EU goose is most certainly certainly cooked. It is suggested that the fundamental changes needed can be readily achieved to the individual constitutions of the individual member states within the EU without difficulty. Many observers maintain that the skill and ability of the EU leaders in such that they will successfully achieve the fundamental changes needed within the tight timetable that such a solution must require.
I beg to differ. The EU is only surviving in its present form because the EU are happily printing Billions of Euros to bail out wholly insolvent states every month. Month after month. Currently the EU has managed to avoid any real appreciation that the inevitable consequence of this policy must be that in time someone has to pick up the tab for this nonsense. Once that becomes apparent, which it must do if the individual states are required to approve Eurobonds, the generally accepted probable "solution" in order for the tab to be picked up, the huge cost and losses associated with such bonds supporting failing states will become all too apparent.
IMO this is the bridge too far in the entire EU Ponzi scheme, which is what this has become and upon which the EU will founder. It could be that one of the failing states now in miserable and worsening recession will pull out. It could be that Ms Merkel will find her tenure on office ended. There are in fact a number of possible ends to the EU nonsense.
But to my mind to suggest that the EU can achieve permanent lasting subsidy from the economically stronger individual states at huge levels to the failing insolvent sovereign states on a continuous basis and that this can be done, without an electoral issue being raised in those states, which will stop such a subsidy dead in its tracks, seems to me to be virtually impossible.
The EU dream is based upon a fundamentally dishonest assertion. This being that every state will benefit economically from being in the EU. The truth is that some states have massively benefited and someone has to pay for this benefits. I cannot see the smoke and mirrors behind this nonsense continuing to fool the people and that is why, from the start of this thread, I have argued that this process must inevitably fail.
Over the last three years the EU have proffered solution after solution after solution. Every one has failed to either provide a lasting economic solution or indeed, to address the real economic problem at all, which is that the failing states cannot actually afford to live at the standards that they have been enjoying. That is why I still believe that the failing states returning to individual economic responsibility outside the EU must be the inevitable outcome.
Tartan Pixie said:
RE Monsieur Hollande's call for an EU government and president, I'm not sure why everyone's shouting surrender as it looks to me like a pretty solid grab at Germany's piggy bank. Surely this call is one for France and the southern states to win and Germany's to lose?
An economic government would probably be able to issue eurobonds and if it was coupled with the ECB being turned in to a proper central bank it would massively undermine Germany's dominant position. Whether Germany will allow this to happen is another question, however I suspect than when faced with unpalatable alternatives it will be comrade Merkel who does the surrendering (or whoever wins in September).
IMO the federal project won't be decided until the German political elite climb in to a bunker in Berlin and decide which way to economically shoot themselves in the head:
1 - Leave the euro and destroy their manufacturing base with an appreciating deutschmark, potentially risking a collapse of the euro which would wipe trillions off the balance sheets of northern banks as southern countries devalue and repatriate debt. (While simultaneously becoming the most hated nation in Europe for being unwilling to make sacrifices after every one else has suffered.)
or
2 - Surrender their sovereignty and bank account on the alter of Europe, even if that means a bit more French style socialism.
My money's on option 2 as the most likely outcome. After all we've been here twice before and after the initial invasion it's the Jerries who end up in the monkey suit with a chunk of camembert in their gob.
Germany's economic dominance has had more to do with leading R&D over the long term combined with efficient world class manufacturing than just a low exchange rate. Just look at the UK companies who've followed the same route and where they are now. (RR Plc, ARM, JLR, GKN, Dyson, etc).An economic government would probably be able to issue eurobonds and if it was coupled with the ECB being turned in to a proper central bank it would massively undermine Germany's dominant position. Whether Germany will allow this to happen is another question, however I suspect than when faced with unpalatable alternatives it will be comrade Merkel who does the surrendering (or whoever wins in September).
IMO the federal project won't be decided until the German political elite climb in to a bunker in Berlin and decide which way to economically shoot themselves in the head:
1 - Leave the euro and destroy their manufacturing base with an appreciating deutschmark, potentially risking a collapse of the euro which would wipe trillions off the balance sheets of northern banks as southern countries devalue and repatriate debt. (While simultaneously becoming the most hated nation in Europe for being unwilling to make sacrifices after every one else has suffered.)
or
2 - Surrender their sovereignty and bank account on the alter of Europe, even if that means a bit more French style socialism.
My money's on option 2 as the most likely outcome. After all we've been here twice before and after the initial invasion it's the Jerries who end up in the monkey suit with a chunk of camembert in their gob.
Edited by Tartan Pixie on Friday 17th May 12:42
In which case they could more effectively weather the storm of a high DM than having to drag the burden of Europe like a ball and chain.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff