The Euro zone

[Teaos]

Well I've been talking about this a bit lattley since my girlfriend is German and I work with a lot of Europeans.

Its really two seperate but related issues. The european union as a political power and the Euro the currency.

With the financial crisis still boiling high and unrest in several countries where do you see the Euro and EU in...

1 year

2 year

5 years

20 years

I think short term as in the next year or two we will see a dramatic reduction in the power of the Euro but I dont think they will lose any members, They are to proud to admit a failure like that and the politicians love it too much.

Longer term, I can see itgetting powerful again to the point it has signifigant global pull, I cant see it growing much more than it is size wise but stability and power wise I can see it getting stronger.

[Deepcrush]

It may be wrong of me, but I've personally felt that the trouble with the EU is a good thing. As long as Europeans have to worry about the petty issues brought on by the EU they are less likely to start another major war. Its a rare case of where all that red tape in fact helps.

[SolkaTruesilver]

You may be actually be very close to the marl, Deep. For what I have read, many see the Euro as a was for Germany to keep it's neighbors relatively dependent to it's goodwill and thu prevent another gang-up on them.

Germany has a history of either being divided, or when it was united all of it's neighbors would cooperate to keep them from being in a position where they would dominate Europe. Having Germany as an essential part of most of it's neighbors' financial process gives them unprecedented security.

[Tinadrin Chelnor]

I think you're pretty spot on Teaos, may take a while for all this economic crisis to blow over, and the Euro to recover, but I think it will over the next perhaps decade or so. I truly hope though that the UK remains outside the Euro.

And SolkaTruesilver, that also seems pretty accurate to me.

[Atekimogus]

Ok first a little background. I was born in the 80s and I am european. So my guess is that it probalby has more to do with age than anything else but a comment like that from Deep seems incredibly backward to me, like something out of the late 50s or 60 were the shock of wwII was still fresh, everyone needed the germans for the cold war, yet were secretly still afraid of them. Western european countries starting a war against each other? How bloody likely is that nowadays? Like it or not, mainland europe is far to integrated (economical if not cultural) to ever make that really a possiblilty anymore. (Honestly, I am more worried about the US starting another phony war against...oh I don't know Iran for example... or whereever next they haven't their hands on a native oil reservoirs. That is a far more likely scenario imho.)

That being said, the EURO is probably here to stay even if it is impractical, however maybe there will be a split between a hard euro zone with countries who have their shit together (germany, france etc.) and a soft zone with countries who cannot be bothered with trivial things...like not cooking books. (Imho...altough maybe overly harsh, as soon as the trouble with greece started they should have kicked them out, not because it would have been the most economical sensible solution but as a warning to all the others that cooking books misappropriating subsidies, and generally making a complete mess out of your finances is not tolerated.)

As for the UK....I see no reason why they should join the Euro-zone. They don't want to...why try to force them? If they'd join they would have to face the reality that quite possibly germany is the country calling the shots and I don't think they are quite ready to admit or accept that, so it would only cause much much unecessary friction.

[Mikey]

I understand that you may not like the verbiage Deep used, Atekimogous, but...

Like it or not, mainland europe is far to(sic) integrated (economical if not cultural) to ever make that really a possiblilty anymore.

That's pretty much a direct paraphrase of what Deep said.

[Captain Seafort]

Like it or not, mainland europe is far to(sic) integrated (economical if not cultural) to ever make that really a possiblilty anymore.

That's pretty much a direct paraphrase of what Deep said.

On the contrary - it's the complete opposite of what Deep said. Deep's comment was that it was the chaos in the Eurozone that was preventing a war. Ate's comment (which, unlike Deep's, is connected to reality) was that it's European (and specifically Franco-German) economic integration that's responsible for the last sixty years of peace. The squabbling has bugger-all to do with it.

[Deepcrush]

On the contrary - it's the complete opposite of what Deep said. Deep's comment was that it was the chaos in the Eurozone that was preventing a war. Ate's comment (which, unlike Deep's, is connected to reality) was that it's European (and specifically Franco-German) economic integration that's responsible for the last sixty years of peace. The squabbling has bugger-all to do with it.

So if my comment has nothing to do with reality, I'd be happy for someone to point out the current boom in the European economy and the near unification of a solid and single European nation.

[Deepcrush]

Ok first a little background. I was born in the 80s and I am european. So my guess is that it probalby has more to do with age than anything else but a comment like that from Deep seems incredibly backward to me, like something out of the late 50s or 60 were the shock of wwII was still fresh, everyone needed the germans for the cold war, yet were secretly still afraid of them. Western european countries starting a war against each other? How bloody likely is that nowadays? Like it or not, mainland europe is far to integrated (economical if not cultural) to ever make that really a possiblilty anymore.

Pretty sure if you read more then every third word you'll notice that I stated nothing about Europe going to war. In fact, you'll notice I stated against Europe going to war. As to the Germans, no one needed them. They were ruined and under occupation and weren't a threat to anyone.

(Honestly, I am more worried about the US starting another phony war against...oh I don't know Iran for example... or whereever next they haven't their hands on a native oil reservoirs. That is a far more likely scenario imho.)

Phony war against Iran is cute since its threatening to cut of the transit point for much of EUROPE's oil supply. But if its phony then I guess its nice to know ahead of time that Europe doesn't use oil so we can just let it alone.

That being said, the EURO is probably here to stay even if it is impractical, however maybe there will be a split between a hard euro zone with countries who have their shit together (germany, france etc.) and a soft zone with countries who cannot be bothered with trivial things...like not cooking books. (Imho...altough maybe overly harsh, as soon as the trouble with greece started they should have kicked them out, not because it would have been the most economical sensible solution but as a warning to all the others that cooking books misappropriating subsidies, and generally making a complete mess out of your finances is not tolerated.)

Just an FYI, the day you start kicking countries out of the EU or off the Euro for spending money of the books. You'll simply have to kick everyone since everyone does it. Its part of running a country, not everything you spend gets put into the newspaper for your neighbor to read.

[Atekimogus]

So if my comment has nothing to do with reality, I'd be happy for someone to point out the current boom in the European economy and the near unification of a solid and single European nation.

It was late and maybe I understood you wrong but I took the same meaning from your quote than Seafort, namely that only the current economic chaos and problems are keeping the europeans from each others throat.

The opposite is true, while the economic chaos and strict regulations of the euro zone might question certain member states the wisdom of joining the euro-zone or the eu (greece comes to mind because of the economy, but also hungary and czech for political reasons) if everything would be peachy and fine and no problems at all, there would even be LESS cause for concern.

As to the Germans, no one needed them. They were ruined and under occupation and weren't a threat to anyone.

And with one simple sentence you have proven your utter ignorance of european history. Not only that they were not perceived as a threat after two great wars of being the aggressors (boy, just watch some educational films shown to US-occupation troops in 45, warning them and blabbering on about the oh so warlike germans only waiting to start wwIII. Or even what Margereth Thatcher thought of german reunification in the late 80s ) they were also much needed immediatly after wwII against the soviet union.

As much as I want to believe that the allies have learned from the Versailles treaties, I imagine the bulk of goodwill shown to the germans after wwII stems exactly from that they had already more pressing concerns, so better to make friends with them opposed to drive them into the USSR open arms.

Phony war against Iran is cute since its threatening to cut of the transit point for much of EUROPE's oil supply. But if its phony then I guess its nice to know ahead of time that Europe doesn't use oil so we can just let it alone.

Hey, I am all for keeping our hands over the precious spice, my point was more that I found it rather interesting that you implied european aggression (only the euro troubles keeping them from going to war) when historically the most warlike and aggressive nation since wwII were the united states. If the history of the last 50 years is any indication Europe is more likely to use economical pressure to achieve it's goals opposed to walzing in with raw force as the US is prone to do and while the hard way of the US is surley more effective in the short run, one might question the wisdom in the long run imho.

Just an FYI, the day you start kicking countries out of the EU or off the Euro for spending money of the books. You'll simply have to kick everyone since everyone does it. Its part of running a country, not everything you spend gets put into the newspaper for your neighbor to read.

Well you probably weren't aware of what I am getting at, which is that Greece should never have joined the EURO zone because they never fulfilled the convergence criteria which where obligatory prior to joining. They only were able to join because it was discovered later that they cooked their books. Now don't tell me everyone did this because I do still remember one of many austerity packets my country had to endure just to meet those criteria and be able to join. The greece took the easy road out and should have been punished for it.

(On the other hand maybe you are right, if they'd done it, they would probably would have been forced to kick Italy, Spain and Portugal out as well............hmm....I always suspected the climate in those countries is to beautiful for their own good.... )

[Mikey]

Here's my question about the overarching issue with the EU. While I agree that the EU has done some pretty not-so-nice things WRT to trying to assert political hegemony over its constituent nations, how did anyone NOT see that coming upon its inception? To use the now-hackneyed example of Ireland; yes, it sucks that the EU felt it could basically demand that Ireland continue to re-vote until it got the answer "right" (read: the one Sarkozy wanted.) However, did anyone really think that such a confederacy could exist ONLY in an economic sphere? I'd say the political/temporal attempt to form the First Holy EU Empire of Western Europe is almost an inevitability of the formation of the EU in any incarnation. When you've got an outside agency controlling a nation's pursestrings, you've got a puppet-master who has that nation by the proverbial short-and-curlies... in ANY and EVERY arena of governance, not just economics.

[GrahamKennedy]

Said it many times; the EU is purely a top-down organisation. It exists because the ruling politicians want it to, and it extends exactly as far as they have been able to push it onto people. There is very little feeling of unity, loyalty, or common cause amongst the people who live within it, very little feeling of patriotism towards it. Little wonder that it has grown up as an essentially bureaucratic system with little or no accountability towards the people and just as little concern for what they want.

To the EU, what the people want is something to be manipulated and manoeuvred around.

[Mikey]

There is very little feeling of unity, loyalty, or common cause amongst the people who live within it, very little feeling of patriotism towards it.

Precisely - it is an artificial construct. If it were possible to create such a construct for purely free-trade and common-currency reasons, then so be it; but despite the original public intentions of the EU, such a thing is not possible without expanding into the sort of attempt on political hegemony which it now has become. With that said, the artificiality of the EU is little different from the post-war artificial gerrymandering which ignored national divisions and created such unnatural states as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc. (Which artificial, rather than native national, divisions helped inspire another war, BTW.)

[Atekimogus]

However, did anyone really think that such a confederacy could exist ONLY in an economic sphere? I'd say the political/temporal attempt to form the First Holy EU Empire of Western Europe is almost an inevitability of the formation of the EU in any incarnation. When you've got an outside agency controlling a nation's pursestrings, you've got a puppet-master who has that nation by the proverbial short-and-curlies... in ANY and EVERY arena of governance, not just economics.

Well to be blunt the idea imho was never to achieve an economical union, the overrall idea was more or less guaranteeing a peaceful europe and keeping the french and germans from each others throat without dubious Bismarckesque treaties which could blow up in your face or via occupying half of the continent.

The means to guarantee that lies in economical connection, making sure that each member state is so dependent on each other that the mere thought of severing all relations and going to war becomes an absurdity.

Not sure if it is the most honest and elegant solution, but then it DID keep the peace in europe for more than 60 years now (USSR part of europe not included of course) which is afaik pretty much the longest era of peace in modern times.

As for Mikeys statement of artificiality....I would it call more of an idiological construct, working really well when everyone has the same vision of mutal understanding and cooperation............well...we see how that is working out atm:)

[Mikey]

That can't have been the goal - even the founders of the EU had to have been able to see that marginalizing the smaller member states and forcing them to accede to the dictates of the prevailing members could never have been anything more than a temporary economic expediency at best.