Why Europe Keeps Failing........ merged with "EU Seizes Cypriot Bank Accounts"

[a_majoor]

To the extent that any morality is involved, I noticed some pundits (eg. Krugman) are trying to make Germany/creditors the bad guy, not Greece/the borrower.

Re Krugman, see: http://army.ca/forums/threads/103357/post-1377124.html#msg1377124

 

[Kirkhill]

The Weak Euro is the one that would need to hang together.  But, IMO, is the one least likely to.

Right now France is betting with Germany's money (and the UK's when it can get its hands on it).  If it were the strongest of the weak economies I doubt if Greece would consider them any better a friend than Germany.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Weak Euro is the one that would need to hang together.  But, IMO, is the one least likely to.

Right now France is betting with Germany's money (and the UK's when it can get its hands on it).  If it were the strongest of the weak economies I doubt if Greece would consider them any better a friend than Germany.

Sadly, I agree with you.

But, I am persuaded that Connolly and Sivey and others are right: the Euro should survive but it must do so without Germany (and a few others). A weak Euro can then undergo what radio engineers describe as "graceful degradation" against strong European and global currencies.

Can there, should there be a strong Euro, too?

The easy part of the answer is, "Yes, there can be such a currency" ... we might call in the Reichsmark

The question of 'should a strong Reichsmark exist?' is more complex. It, the strong Reichsmark, could become a candidate as, at least as a partner with the US dollar, a global reserve currency. But, both the weak Euro and the strong Reischsmark would require their members to surrender some sovereignty, over monetary policy and over some aspects of fiscal and foreign/trade policies, to the centre.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm not sure if Europe is ready for this, again:

 

[GAP]

The whole purpose of the Euro****** is to eventually unify Europe into one organization.

I think they invited in a lot of weak sisters and then moved things along way too fast, too fast for the weak sisters to conform and adjust, even if they had a mind to, which they don't.

The weak sisters saw a candy store and went to town......

 

[George Wallace]

I'm not sure if Europe is ready for this, again:

I'm ready.  "Break glass in case of emergency".  Should be able to afford a coffee.

 

[cupper]

The whole European Union seems to me to be a failed experiment. Member countries essentially gave up sovereignty for convenience of trade, travel and policy.

Unfortunately they also appear to have given up common sense in setting common standards, policies and regulations.

I think the financial crisis in Greece is the tipping point at which the breakup of the union will start to gain momentum. We may still be years away from dissolution, but like a tree eventually breaks a rock, it only takes a small crack to get things going.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think adopting the Euro was seen to be a torch that would cause all to fall into line and follow forward. It's a grand idea that looked nice in a power point, but no one wanted to deal with the stuff in the weeds.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think adopting the Euro was seen to be a torch that would cause all to fall into line and follow forward. It's a grand idea that looked nice in a power point, but no one wanted to deal with the stuff in the weeds.

There are certainly a number of voices calling for the Federalization of Europe to manage the crisis.  They accept that you can't have a monetary union without a political one.  So now they are pushing for a political one.  Just at the time David Cameron claims to be looking for a looser arrangement.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are certainly a number of voices calling for the Federalization of Europe to manage the crisis.  They accept that you can't have a monetary union without a political one.  So now they are pushing for a political one.  Just at the time David Cameron claims to be looking for a looser arrangement.

And, of course the right answer is: both!

There probably should be a "Mediterranean Confederation" (Portugal, (OK, not really in the Med, but close) Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Montenegro, Kosovo and Greece (and a few others)) who should be in a currency union (the weak Euro) and, of practical necessity, in some sort of political union: think Canada, but with the provinces being even stronger ~ having their own armed forces and foreign policies but having surrendered all monetary, most trade and some fiscal policy to a new political-bureaucratic-administrative centre (probably in Paris).

There should, also, be a looser European Free Trade Area that embraces all of the current EU, plus Norway and Switzerland and the Balkan states. This should be a simple "free trade area" ~ more akin to NAFTA than to the current EU.

There is room, in the middle, for something akin to the current EU, with (too much, in my opinion) centralized bureaucracy in Brussels and too much politics in Strasbourg.

Let me see, it might look a bit like a ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
                   

 
                      ... with a big, loosely connect, tier at the "bottom" and a much smaller, very tightly integrated tier on "top."

 

[Kirkhill]

..... with an evermore Baroque (even Rococo) confection disguising the structural differences?  :nod:

 

[a_majoor]

European pastry chefs have the problem that there are many layers in the "cake". My own reading is there is a "Latin Zone" (France, Spain, Portugal, Italy), The German zone (Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria), the Nordic Zone (Sweden, Norway, Finland), the Eastern Zone (Former Warsaw Pact nations centered on Poland), the Baltic states (Not worth one Pomeranian Grenadier in the infamous words of Bismark) and the UK serenely offshore.

There are multiple problems, of course. Some overlap of interests may occur between "zones" (Is Denmark more "Germany centric" or "Nordic Centric"?, for example). The other issue, and the fundamental one the EUZone was supposed to solve, is the various nations and groupings have conflicting interests, which can drive them into conflict with each other.

Some sort of federal system could manage this in theory (Germany itself is a Federal system, and of course the United States was initially "These United States"), but the current setup of the EU is not in any way a federation, but rather a centralized bureaucracy with little transparency or accountability (which explains a lot about why nationalistic parties are springing up and gaining electoral support across Europe). Since the Bureaucracy isn't going to reform itself, the system will become incrweasingly brittle and inflexible, until inevitably enough internal pressure or a sudden external shock breaks it.

 

[Kirkhill]

On the EFTA front:

Dear Britain, there is life outside the EU
Iceland, Switzerland and Norway all enjoy the perks of the European market without the burden of the EU. So come on out - the water's lovely

By Thomas Aeschi and Guthlaugur Thor Thordarson12:15PM BST 10 Jul 2015

Is it possible to be part of a European market but not of a political union in Europe? Absolutely. Our countries are doing precisely that now. And you know something? It’s working pretty well.

We are Government MPs from the European countries who didn’t join the EU – those in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). It’s been many years since any opinion poll showed a pro-EU majority in an EFTA nation. Iceland has formally withdrawn its application, and the Swiss pro-EU campaign has admitted defeat and closed down. As for Norway, the latest survey there showed 17.8 per cent in favour of joining, 70.5 per cent against.

Why do people prefer our deal to yours? Not because it’s perfect – nothing is perfect – but because it allows us to participate in the European market while retaining our self-government.

Of course, each of our states have struck slightly different deals with Brussels. Iceland is part of the European Economic Area, which brings it within some elements of EU jurisdiction, albeit almost entirely in economic fields; Switzerland relies instead on a series of bilateral treaties.

Still, the broad picture is similar enough. We buy and sell freely within the European market. But we are outside the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the rules on common EU citizenship, the harmonisation of criminal justice and other non-economic matters. We pay a contribution to the EU budget – but less than a third, in per capita terms, of what Britain does.

Critically, we are also outside the Common External Tariff. In other words, as well as trading freely with the EU, we can also sign bilateral treaties with non-EU states – something that Britain, as an EU member, can’t do. This is a real advantage in a world where Europe is the only continent that isn’t growing. For example, both our countries signed free trade agreements with China last year. Britain isn’t allowed to do so.

It’s true that our exporters must meet EU standard when they sell into the EU, just as they must meet Japanese standards when they sell to Japan. But, in most cases, we don’t have to apply those standards to non-EU exports. This becomes a greater advantage with every passing month, as the EU’s share of world GDP shrinks.

The clue is in the name: European Free Trade Association. Free trade and national sovereignty turn out to make a pretty good combination. Income per head in EFTA countries is, on average, 56 per cent higher than in the EU. And both our countries export more to the EU, in proportionate terms, than Britain does.

Britain was once the leading EFTA state. It could be again. Come on in: the water’s lovely.

Thomas Aeschi is a Swiss MP; Guthlaugur Thor Thordarson is an Icelandic MP

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11730318/Dear-Britain-there-is-life-outside-the-EU.html

 

[Kirkhill]

And commentary on a Federal Europe

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/1/8874403/united-states-of-europe

http://www.theglobalist.com/grexit-euro-crisis-eurozone-europe-eu-greece/

And William Hague....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11721838/Greece-does-not-mark-the-end-of-the-euro-debacle-merely-the-beginning.html

 

[Kirkhill]

European pastry chefs have the problem that there are many layers in the "cake". My own reading is there is a "Latin Zone" (France, Spain, Portugal, Italy), The German zone (Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria), the Nordic Zone (Sweden, Norway, Finland), the Eastern Zone (Former Warsaw Pact nations centered on Poland), the Baltic states (Not worth one Pomeranian Grenadier in the infamous words of Bismark) and the UK serenely offshore.

There are multiple problems, of course. Some overlap of interests may occur between "zones" (Is Denmark more "Germany centric" or "Nordic Centric"?, for example). The other issue, and the fundamental one the EUZone was supposed to solve, is the various nations and groupings have conflicting interests, which can drive them into conflict with each other.

Some sort of federal system could manage this in theory (Germany itself is a Federal system, and of course the United States was initially "These United States"), but the current setup of the EU is not in any way a federation, but rather a centralized bureaucracy with little transparency or accountability (which explains a lot about why nationalistic parties are springing up and gaining electoral support across Europe). Since the Bureaucracy isn't going to reform itself, the system will become incrweasingly brittle and inflexible, until inevitably enough internal pressure or a sudden external shock breaks it.

Actually the nuancing that you allude to is, IMO, part of the problem.  The more finely you define the layers, the harder it is to define where one layer ends and the other begins.

You move from here

to here

to here

and ultimately to here

The distinctions vanish until you have loosely piled heap of contradictions with no internal cohesion, order or structure.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The whole European Union seems to me to be a failed experiment. Member countries essentially gave up sovereignty for convenience of trade, travel and policy.

I've always looked at it as the Germans and French trying to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[vonGarvin]

I've always looked at it as the Germans and French trying to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire.

...which was neither Holy nor Roman.

IMHO, they forget that Europeans aren't "a people".  Hell, Germans aren't "a people": there are Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons....etc. 

Europe ought once again be a collection of various neighbours, all with good fences to make them good neighbours.

 

[George Wallace]

........, all with good fences to make them good neighbours.

Hungary and Bulgaria are rebuilding the fences that were torn down after the Wall came down.  Fences that once kept people IN, are now being rebuilt to keep people OUT.  The mass exodus of Muslim refugees from North Africa, and whatever else may be mixed in with them, is causing quite the concern in some of Europe's 'poorer' nations.

 

[The Bread Guy]

IMHO, they forget that Europeans aren't "a people".  Hell, Germans aren't "a people": there are Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons....etc. 

Also soooooo true for Italy as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Also soooooo true for Italy as well.

Add France and Spain to your list (and even Belgium).