What would be bad about a unified Europe?
Discussion
By that, I don't mean an extension of the current mishmash, but a full integration of Europe as a single country.
One currency, one bank, one head of state, one elected parliament, one army, etc, etc...
It seems to me that most of the current f
k ups come from obviously unsustainable paradoxes such as one currency with 17 fiscal and monetary policies, or through a lack of democracy in the person of the commission.
If we went the whole hog on integration to create a new country of Europe with proper democracy at its heart, why would that be a bad thing?
It would certainly put us on a more even footing in any negotiations with the likes of the US, China and India.
Would any objections just be about jingoistic flag-waving, or are there any real, practical reasons why this might be a bad thing?
One currency, one bank, one head of state, one elected parliament, one army, etc, etc...
It seems to me that most of the current f
k ups come from obviously unsustainable paradoxes such as one currency with 17 fiscal and monetary policies, or through a lack of democracy in the person of the commission. If we went the whole hog on integration to create a new country of Europe with proper democracy at its heart, why would that be a bad thing?
It would certainly put us on a more even footing in any negotiations with the likes of the US, China and India.
Would any objections just be about jingoistic flag-waving, or are there any real, practical reasons why this might be a bad thing?
jmorgan said:
2000+ years of fighting and suspicion and intrigue and interference is hard to suppress. Why not get along as individual countries safe in our own identity?
I think that has been tried but with limited success.The history of Europe has been one of constant wars. Even now, with little or no real threat to this country, we are out there in the middle east shooting at people. One thing the EEC has given us is a reason, mainly financial, for the states to get along.
We don't know what will happen if the EEC did fold but the odds are for massive attempts to get the upper hand. We now have a reunified Germany. Anyone with any knowledge of history will realise this is not a good idea if they are left out on their own.
That said, there is nothing to stop us pulling back, or even out, and there still being an EEC.
Don't knock the Meditterranean way of life. My wife had a posh, and wealthy, friend in Blackheath whose father was a PPS to the bloke running the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He retired and then for three months each year worked as a waiter in a taverna on the Greek mainland. I spoke with him, or rather a slimmer, younger looking and tanned version of the bloke who retired at 55, after three or four years and he said that his experiences there, and in the Algarve where he wintered, showed him that he'd got his priorities all wrong in his early life.
Kermit power said:
By that, I don't mean an extension of the current mishmash, but a full integration of Europe as a single country.
One currency, one bank, one head of state, one elected parliament, one army,
Would any objections just be about jingoistic flag-waving, or are there any real, practical reasons why this might be a bad thing?
Imagine the "north south" economic divide in the UK, magnified by about 50,000 miles.One currency, one bank, one head of state, one elected parliament, one army,
Would any objections just be about jingoistic flag-waving, or are there any real, practical reasons why this might be a bad thing?
Different cost bases, different tax regimes, different expectations. How would you decide how to price thngs, lowest average cost in all nations, so for example find where petrol is cheapest and set that as the price across Europe. Bonus for some, not the companies who sell at higher prices. The "local" government that had enjoyed high tax revenue from pricey petrol would see it's income reduced. Hw would it continue to fund the things it was committd to (think jobs, infrastructure etc) when it's income was lower?
or, you go for the highest price, and destroy countries with low costs, who were competitive with low wages and costs, and would experience hyperinflation because every worker would need to earn more to be able to pay that higher price, ramping up the cost of their goods, making them as expensive as everywhere else, and thus less attractive than they had been.
some would benefit, many would not. and all of them would be capable of voting.
DS3R said:
Imagine the "north south" economic divide in the UK, magnified by about 50,000 miles.
Different cost bases, different tax regimes, different expectations. How would you decide how to price thngs, lowest average cost in all nations, so for example find where petrol is cheapest and set that as the price across Europe. Bonus for some, not the companies who sell at higher prices. The "local" government that had enjoyed high tax revenue from pricey petrol would see it's income reduced. Hw would it continue to fund the things it was committd to (think jobs, infrastructure etc) when it's income was lower?
or, you go for the highest price, and destroy countries with low costs, who were competitive with low wages and costs, and would experience hyperinflation because every worker would need to earn more to be able to pay that higher price, ramping up the cost of their goods, making them as expensive as everywhere else, and thus less attractive than they had been.
some would benefit, many would not. and all of them would be capable of voting.
You get all of that anyway, in any country. Roll it up into Europe, and yes, you'd have to sort these issues out, but you'd also have massive economies of scale to help you do it. Different cost bases, different tax regimes, different expectations. How would you decide how to price thngs, lowest average cost in all nations, so for example find where petrol is cheapest and set that as the price across Europe. Bonus for some, not the companies who sell at higher prices. The "local" government that had enjoyed high tax revenue from pricey petrol would see it's income reduced. Hw would it continue to fund the things it was committd to (think jobs, infrastructure etc) when it's income was lower?
or, you go for the highest price, and destroy countries with low costs, who were competitive with low wages and costs, and would experience hyperinflation because every worker would need to earn more to be able to pay that higher price, ramping up the cost of their goods, making them as expensive as everywhere else, and thus less attractive than they had been.
some would benefit, many would not. and all of them would be capable of voting.
We're already in a global marketplace, so ourt labour is already competing against the Chinese and others. I would imagine than as one single nation, we would be in a better position to exploit our cheaper and more expensive areas to better effect.
At present, the Brits, Germans and Scandinavians resent being seen as always paying into Europe. Make it all one big country, and you get the Northern half creating the commercial conditions to allow greater investment in manufacturing skills in the Southern half, to the good of all.
You'd also have the ability to truly live and work where you liked, limited only by your need to travel. In theory, you can choose at present to live in Paris and work in London, for example, but in practice it's a nightmare of conflicting tax, health and everything else systems. Make it one Europe, and your only concern (always assuming you're happy to learn new languages, which everyone can do if they try), is whether you can afford a Eurostar season ticket.
thinfourth2 said:
On the upside
Westminister can be turned into a theme park
The daily mail readers would all explode
Downside
You know the EU would take the worst laws and systems from every country make them a bit worse and use them everywhere
Your downside assumes an extension of what we currently have. Assume instead, for this thread at least, a complete overhaul. Westminister can be turned into a theme park
The daily mail readers would all explode
Downside
You know the EU would take the worst laws and systems from every country make them a bit worse and use them everywhere
If you look at Europe as a collective entity then many of the financial problems disappear. Government and consumer debt, balance of trade, government spending deficit, etc. would all look acceptable if considered as a block. I'm not sure whether historic, cultural and political issues would be surmountable though.
Quite a good question.
The blueprint would presumably be the USA - large number of separate states, under the umberella of "The Union". As I understand it, they have limited powers to raise tax/run their own budgets etc.
The obvious difference is the multiple languages used in EU compared to just english/spanish in USA.
I can see the benefits in the removal of trading defecits between members, but is centralisation of power ever a good thing?
The blueprint would presumably be the USA - large number of separate states, under the umberella of "The Union". As I understand it, they have limited powers to raise tax/run their own budgets etc.
The obvious difference is the multiple languages used in EU compared to just english/spanish in USA.
I can see the benefits in the removal of trading defecits between members, but is centralisation of power ever a good thing?
BOR said:
The blueprint would presumably be the USA - large number of separate states, under the umberella of "The Union".
The comparisons to the USA are commonly used and quite understandable at first, however we must remember and understand how the United States of America came into being.The USA, and the British Colonies before hand, were founded under a common cause, by like minded people, mostly from GB and Ireland. They had common laws, currency, culture and values. After Independance, the USA was founded (mostly) on British values and existing British laws, and as new territories joined, they essentially already had the Dollar (for example), and similar laws etc.
What I'm trying to say is, unlike Europe, with it's vast differences in, well, everything, as well as thousands of years of history, the USA, from conception to completion took less than 200 years, and in all that time, essentially the SAME peoples/cultures/laws etc were joining the Union.
Hope that all makes sense.
V88Dicky said:
I'm all for a United Europe, providing it was governed from The Palace of Westminster, used Pounds Sterling, drove on the left, ditched the metric system, and flew this flag;
Apologies to those of a left-leaning or British-hating nature
Ah so close, you lost me at scrapping the metric system. My pencil was hovering over the vote V88Dicky box.Apologies to those of a left-leaning or British-hating nature
Kermit power said:
By that, I don't mean an extension of the current mishmash, but a full integration of Europe as a single country.
So, a little bit of integration has resulted in most of Europe tetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Your solution is more integration. Brilliant!What would you suggest if someone became ill after taking some arsenic? More arsenic?
Don
--
MX7 said:
I think that Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro are good indicators that Europe is going in the opposite direction.
In fact, I can't think of any countries that decided to unify.
In fact, I can't think of any countries that decided to unify.
Something I've been saying since the early 90s. The nation state came into being because people tend to identify themselves by nationalities - defined by language, religion (sometimes), culture, shared history etc. Supranational states tend to be either empires or forced marriages. In both cases one or more of the member nationalities dominate the others. In fact I'd say that the UK has been the only effective supranational state and only because the member nations are really very similar. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been and isn't a desire by some of the member states for independence. See Ireland or the 'If Scotland was Independent' thread).
After the First World Wars supranational states were created from the remnants of the Hapsburg empire in central and south eastern Europe. These were between nationalities that were very similar indeed - Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. They lasted as long as they did because of communist dictatorships. As soon as that was gone they fragmented. The Czechs and Slovaks parted amicably but Yugoslavia showed what happens when you try to keep a supranational state together by force.
The EU is already intolerant of members that don't toe the line (unless they happen to be France or Germany, of course). Sanctions were imposed on Austria in 2000 when they had the cheek to elect a government that the EU didn't like and the Irish electorate were asked again when they gave the 'wrong' answer at their referendum. My rather abstract worry is that at some time in the future a member state will attempt to secede from the EU - or a United States of Europe - which will result in a forceful attempt to keep it in. The whole European project was started to prevent wars between member states but in the end it may cause them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff