Ultimatum EU Blueprint - The Final Solution
Discussion
Sway said:
There is no contradiction. Just as with banned fiscal transfers, breaches of the stability pact help the integrationist cause - enabling crises to occur, for which the only proposed solution is more EU. The ECB is steadily gaining control through the debt it owns to the point where fiscal Union is not far from occurring fully.
All as per stated aims and methods by those at the helm of the EU ship, from Monnet to Mitterand to Juncker.
You're absolutely right. The common currency was always seen as a tool by the Federalists that would eventually lead to full fiscal control of all the member states. That's why they were so keen to get it in place, turning a blind eye to Greece, Italy and others not meeting the requirements for entry.All as per stated aims and methods by those at the helm of the EU ship, from Monnet to Mitterand to Juncker.
Greece has never met the requirements for the single currency since it's inception. Portugal and Italy are not far behind.
Despite this these countries have been allowed to borrow enormous amounts of money.
The EU continues to turn a blind eye when it suits them as the Euro can't be allowed to fail, whatever the cost.
The Federalists have put their inflexible political agenda above all else.
mattmurdock said:
Do none of you see the contradiction there? You say the EU is furthering its bureaucratic control and aim to take sovereignty from the nation states, and yet several of the nation states are regularly breaking EU rules without significant sanction?
It just sounds like your issue is with Germany, France, Spain and Italy, not with the EU - they are playing the game, and we picked up our ball and went home.
Or as Yes Minister put it. It just sounds like your issue is with Germany, France, Spain and Italy, not with the EU - they are playing the game, and we picked up our ball and went home.
"The Germans love it, the French ignore it, and the Irish and Italians are too chaotic to enforce it, so it's only Britain that's bothered".
If they are allowed to get away with ignoring rules, it's hardly surprising if they don't stop the EU coming up with excessive regulation.
mattmurdock said:
Do none of you see the contradiction there?
No. The euro was embarked on in full knowledge that a crisis of monetary union would lead to an inevitable, and necessary, fiscal and political union. It was openly discussed prior to the crisis. (Romano Prodi, FT 2001; with respect to fiscal union “I am sure the euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created.”) Whilst I'm not suggesting the dismantling of the Stability and Growth Pact was malicious, it is a happy coincidence, if your goal is fiscal and political 'integration', that the envitable consequence would result in a debt crisis, the solution to which would be a move to fiscal union. fblm said:
No. The euro was embarked on in full knowledge that a crisis of monetary union would lead to an inevitable, and necessary, fiscal and political union. It was openly discussed prior to the crisis. (Romano Prodi, FT 2001; with respect to fiscal union “I am sure the euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created.”) Whilst I'm not suggesting the dismantling of the Stability and Growth Pact was malicious, it is a happy coincidence, if your goal is fiscal and political 'integration', that the envitable consequence would result in a debt crisis, the solution to which would be a move to fiscal union.
Yes, obviously it was.What I'm trying to point out is we are not in the Euro, would only go into the Euro if a democratically elected UK government took us into the Euro.
So arguments that 'Federalist Europe' was going to suddenly take away our sovereignty and force us into more fiscal and political union seem redundant.
The contradiction is nothing to do with the bleeding obvious statement that a shared currency by nature requires fiscal and political union to function properly.
The contradiction is saying the 'unelected EU Commission' is going to force the member states to do whatever it wants, while simultaneously highlighting all the times the member states have effectively told the EU to do one.
The contradiction is in saying we had lost our sovereignty to the EU whilst simultaneously exercising our sovereignty by voting to leave.
mattmurdock said:
So arguments that 'Federalist Europe' was going to suddenly take away our sovereignty and force us into more fiscal and political union seem redundant.
Only if you assume further integration would only apply to EZ countries and not EU.mattmurdock said:
The contradiction is nothing to do with the bleeding obvious statement that a shared currency by nature requires fiscal and political union to function properly.
Appologies, it's far from bleeding obvious to most.mattmurdock said:
The contradiction is saying the 'unelected EU Commission' is going to force the member states to do whatever it wants, while simultaneously highlighting all the times the member states have effectively told the EU to do one.
All the times? A few Spanish fishermen and dodgy Italian Farmers getting away with ignoring the EU is hardly a sign of a healthy democracy. Neither is my example of Germany undermining the stability and growth pact for it's own short term economic benefit in the full knowledge of how it would likely end. The best but still unconvincing example of your 'contradiction' would be Londons successful fight to keep euroclearing after they tried to illegally force you to relinquish that business. OK you won but only because you took 'them' to court over it, hardly a political victory. mattmurdock said:
The contradiction is in saying we had lost our sovereignty to the EU whilst simultaneously exercising our sovereignty by voting to leave.
I've read this a number of times. It makes sense superficially but something is not right. It's kind of circular because unless you ever exercise that 'sovereignty' [to leave] then you're not, in practice, sovereign. It's a bit like being invaded by a foreign army but doing nothing about it because well, they're not that bad and you could, if you really wanted to, nuke them at any moment. Either way the current arrangement is less of a concern than where it is/was heading. You only needed another grasping Blair type to sign you up to an EU with no exit route and poof, it's gone. I for one am looking forward to receiving my EU tax payer identification number and id card.
mattmurdock said:
They had a mandate to stop austerity, not a mandate to leave the EU. Opinion polls at the time suggested a 70% 'remain' vote to stay in the EU. So they were between a rock and a hard place - they had to renegotiate the austerity, but they couldn't threaten to leave the EU as they would have had a hard time politically at home.
So it wasn't EU threats that kept them in, it was democracy
.
They also had a major disadvantage compared to the UK, their currency is the €. If they had said "screw you" to the EU and flounced out then they would have been essentially currencyless. With a bit of crafty planning a year or so in advance and a warehouse full of freshly printed neo-Drachmas they would have been in a much stronger position to just default and walk away.So it wasn't EU threats that kept them in, it was democracy
.mattmurdock said:
So arguments that 'Federalist Europe' was going to suddenly take away our sovereignty and force us into more fiscal and political union seem redundant......
The contradiction is saying the 'unelected EU Commission' is going to force the member states to do whatever it wants, while simultaneously highlighting all the times the member states have effectively told the EU to do one.
The contradiction is in saying we had lost our sovereignty to the EU whilst simultaneously exercising our sovereignty by voting to leave.
I don't think many would agree with you that the EU is going to "suddenly take away our sovereignty". On the contrary most of us realise that the federalist are playing a long game.The contradiction is saying the 'unelected EU Commission' is going to force the member states to do whatever it wants, while simultaneously highlighting all the times the member states have effectively told the EU to do one.
The contradiction is in saying we had lost our sovereignty to the EU whilst simultaneously exercising our sovereignty by voting to leave.
Member states don't usually tell the EU to "do one", in fact I doubt that's ever happened. They may drag their heels on implementing EU directives. They may not comply with the requirements of the single currency. The EU, or more correctly the President of the EU Commission, will address these transgressions as it/he sees fit.
For example France's continuous breaking of the common currency rules which should incur a financial penalty have been overlooked "because it's France" according to Mr Juncker. On the other hand the UK has been fined more than £600 million pounds for incorrectly allocating the ridiculously complicated EU farm subsidies. Farmers will also be fined for failing to publicly display EU "Gratitude Plaques" at their own cost. Luckily these plaques will no longer be required and so the farmers can now stick them wherever they want.
There's no contradiction regarding sovereignty. There's no argument that Brussels now has sovereign powers in many areas, fortunately not in the option of leaving the EU.
jjlynn27 said:
Was out for the most of the day, did anyone actually managed to find EU Army and Final Solution in the document linked? The original one not google translated Polish one?
It depends upon your interpretation of what's written. For example I don't think anyone expects to see a statement such as "we're gonna get an EU ARMY with troops in barracks just outside the EU offices ready to knock heads", so no, I can't see anything like that. What is more likely is that defence/offence capability will be distributed within member states, almost like an EU version of NATO. From reading the document it also sounds (my interpretation, not explicitly mentioned) that the talks with the US have included the way the US underwrites NATO to a greater extent than the EU states do. I would imagine it went "you want us to pay to trade with you buddy ? heck, we're already paying to defend you !"
So there are quotes on improving defence of the entire union;
document said:
Member States need the technological and industrial means to acquire and sustain those capabilities which underpin their ability to act autonomously. While defence policy and spending remain national prerogatives, no Member State can afford to do this individually: this requires a concerted and cooperative effort. Deeper defence cooperation engenders interoperability, effectiveness, efficiency and trust: it increases the output of defence spending. Developing and maintaining defence capabilities requires both investments and optimising the use of national resources through deeper cooperation. The EU will assist Member States and step up its contribution to Europe’s security and defence in line with the Treaties.
so basically, "we'll help you to get more guns but be prepared to co-operate with the rest of your mates." The document then moves into how the EU as a collective is going to operate (I have quoted only the defence areas);document said:
To acquire and maintain many of these capabilities, Member States will need to move towards defence cooperation as the norm. Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, nationally-oriented defence programmes are insufficient to address (EU) capability shortfalls.
(followed by)
Defence cooperation between Member States will be systematically encouraged. Regular assessments of EDA benchmarks can create positive peer pressure among Member States. Crucially, EU funding for defence research and technology, reflected first in the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework, and then in a fully-fledged programme in the next budget cycle, will prove instrumental in developing the defence capabilities Europe needs.
I think that's pretty much it. You can hang onto the "Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions" to mean "oh no, we're not going to make an army" if you like but IMO it's naive when collated alongside quotes from Junkers;(followed by)
Defence cooperation between Member States will be systematically encouraged. Regular assessments of EDA benchmarks can create positive peer pressure among Member States. Crucially, EU funding for defence research and technology, reflected first in the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework, and then in a fully-fledged programme in the next budget cycle, will prove instrumental in developing the defence capabilities Europe needs.
Junkers in an FT article said:
In an interview with German newspaper Die Welt, Jean-Claude Juncker, who leads the EU’s executive arm, said an EU army would let the continent “react credibly to threats to peace in a member state or a neighbour of the EU”.
Mr Juncker said an EU army would “help us to develop a common foreign and security policy, and to fulfil Europe’s responsibilities in the world”. Nato was not a sufficient protection for the EU as not all EU members are part of the alliance, according to Mr Juncker.
Note - it says "IN a member state". Could you interpret that as meaning "if your people riot in the streets at what we're doing, we'll come and crack heads for you"Mr Juncker said an EU army would “help us to develop a common foreign and security policy, and to fulfil Europe’s responsibilities in the world”. Nato was not a sufficient protection for the EU as not all EU members are part of the alliance, according to Mr Juncker.
It's cleverly written. It says "we've gotta get tougher" and "we're all gonna have to pull together and co-operate on military capabilities" none of which you'd argue with in principle. But, imagine there's a fuss in the Med and the UK happen to have a boat full of soldiers and guns there. It sounds quite likely we'd get pressurised to going in to sort it out even if the UK wasn't directly concerned ? Otherwise where does the "co-operation" go ?
b2hbm said:
Note - it says "IN a member state". Could you interpret that as meaning "if your people riot in the streets at what we're doing, we'll come and crack heads for you"
It's cleverly written. It says "we've gotta get tougher" and "we're all gonna have to pull together and co-operate on military capabilities" none of which you'd argue with in principle. But, imagine there's a fuss in the Med and the UK happen to have a boat full of soldiers and guns there. It sounds quite likely we'd get pressurised to going in to sort it out even if the UK wasn't directly concerned ? Otherwise where does the "co-operation" go ?
We are going to be co-operating with them anyway, surely? If there is a defence concern in Europe, even if we aren't in the EU, our membership of NATO and the UN Security Council, along with our co-operation agreements with other European countries (which we will continue to have) will oblige us to assist.It's cleverly written. It says "we've gotta get tougher" and "we're all gonna have to pull together and co-operate on military capabilities" none of which you'd argue with in principle. But, imagine there's a fuss in the Med and the UK happen to have a boat full of soldiers and guns there. It sounds quite likely we'd get pressurised to going in to sort it out even if the UK wasn't directly concerned ? Otherwise where does the "co-operation" go ?
Given the member states retain sovereignty over defence decisions, we would have exactly the same power to decide NOT to help if we didn't want to if we were in the EU or if we weren't, so that makes no difference at all.
All of that still does not mean there will be a creation of an EU army, given the majority of the member states are ignoring the minimum defence spend, why are they suddenly going to change their mind and start forming an army. The Commission can't do it on their own, they need the Parliament and Council (both elected) to agree it.
mattmurdock said:
We are going to be co-operating with them anyway, surely? If there is a defence concern in Europe, even if we aren't in the EU, our membership of NATO and the UN Security Council, along with our co-operation agreements with other European countries (which we will continue to have) will oblige us to assist.
No Matt, we aren't automatically going to pitch in. We are members of NATO and yes, we'd go to the aid of a NATO member. But all EU nations aren't members of the NATO alliance and we would almost certainly not rush over to some of the smaller and newer EU members if they decided to start a scrap somewhere.Moving on, I only quoted the main, 60 page document above. The shorter one, also linked further back in this thread and coming from a German source sets out the intentions of France and Germany and is not a word-for-word copy of the strategy document. It contains the following when discussing the threats to the EU;
"To respond to this challenge, Germany and France propose a European Security Compact which encompasses all aspects of security and defence dealt with at the European level and thus delivers on the EU’s promise to strengthen security for its citizens."
Now I know newspapers hype things up but taking those documents and the statements from the major players in the EU together, it's not unreasonable to assume there's some sort of military force in the planning stages. It's not just Junkers saying so, it's come from other officials as well.
I can tell from your previous posts you don't believe this and I'm quite happy for you to continue doing so. It makes no difference at all to me, it's a free world and we are all allowed to interpret things as we see them.
Edited by b2hbm on Friday 1st July 10:15
b2hbm said:
But all EU nations aren't members of the NATO alliance and we would almost certainly not rush over to some of the smaller and newer EU members if they decided to start a scrap somewhere.
They almost certainly would if any nations that close to member nations started a scrap, as evidenced by the Balkans conflict and the ongoing NATO presence in Kosovo. Currently NATO have forces in Afghanistan, an anti piracy mission of the horn of Africa, supports AMISOM in Somalia so its a global force not just local.RizzoTheRat said:
They almost certainly would if any nations that close to member nations started a scrap, as evidenced by the Balkans conflict and the ongoing NATO presence in Kosovo. Currently NATO have forces in Afghanistan, an anti piracy mission of the horn of Africa, supports AMISOM in Somalia so its a global force not just local.
Fair point, I stand corrected. My understanding that NATO was only employed in defensive situations following attack on a member state, obviously not so.From what I've read of that document it looks to me like they want to make a very NATOish organisation within the EU.
Under NATO individual members are encouraged to develop their capabilities to ensure NATO has the full range available to them, each country commits a portion of their forces to NATO, with a larger portion potentially available to deploy if required. This EU document talks about co-operation to build capabilities in a similar way
There's a huge overlap between EU and NATO so I'm not at all sure how the EU members commitment to NATO would tie in with their commitment to the EU in this approach.
Under NATO individual members are encouraged to develop their capabilities to ensure NATO has the full range available to them, each country commits a portion of their forces to NATO, with a larger portion potentially available to deploy if required. This EU document talks about co-operation to build capabilities in a similar way
There's a huge overlap between EU and NATO so I'm not at all sure how the EU members commitment to NATO would tie in with their commitment to the EU in this approach.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Friday 1st July 10:38
Northern Munkee said:
Very good read. But it was written in 2011, I need an updated situation report. Has the situation moved on any? Or started home to roost?
article said "In the end, only two possibilities will remain: a transfer union, in which the strong countries pay for the weak; or a smaller monetary union, a core Europe of sorts, that would consist of only relatively comparable economies.A transfer and liability union requires new political institutions, and individual countries would have to confer a significant portion of their powers on Brussels. Some politicians are warming up to this idea as they consider an economic government or even a United States of Europe, but without explaining exactly what this means."
i think the recent developments regarding accelerated integration suggest that this part of the article was spot on. it just took a bit longer than the writer thought due to the snails pace the eu works at.
b2hbm said:
Good points.
As said, good points but I don't see them as creating EU Army at all. I certainly don't see 'The Final Solution' as per thread title. Picking part of the whole document, saying ah if you believe in the part that states that will retain their decision, that conflate that with totally unrelated speech by Juncker is, with respect, wrong.
I have few days off, so I've been reading all this sensationalist bs, and it's, imo, just that.
Saying all that wish that I'd like if Juncker would just go somewhere.
b2hbm said:
RizzoTheRat said:
They almost certainly would if any nations that close to member nations started a scrap, as evidenced by the Balkans conflict and the ongoing NATO presence in Kosovo. Currently NATO have forces in Afghanistan, an anti piracy mission of the horn of Africa, supports AMISOM in Somalia so its a global force not just local.
Fair point, I stand corrected. My understanding that NATO was only employed in defensive situations following attack on a member state, obviously not so.RizzoTheRat said:
From what I've read of that document it looks to me like they want to make a very NATOish organisation within the EU.
Under NATO individual members are encouraged to develop their capabilities to ensure NATO has the full range available to them, each country commits a portion of their forces to NATO, with a larger portion potentially available to deploy if required. This EU document talks about co-operation to build capabilities in a similar way
There's a huge overlap between EU and NATO so I'm not at all sure how the EU members commitment to NATO would tie in with their commitment to the EU in this approach.
From what I've read from that document it talks more about coordination between some (not all members). I didn't get impression that they are a competition to it as it would be a non-starter for obvious reasons.Under NATO individual members are encouraged to develop their capabilities to ensure NATO has the full range available to them, each country commits a portion of their forces to NATO, with a larger portion potentially available to deploy if required. This EU document talks about co-operation to build capabilities in a similar way
There's a huge overlap between EU and NATO so I'm not at all sure how the EU members commitment to NATO would tie in with their commitment to the EU in this approach.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Friday 1st July 10:38
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff