EU Vote

[Robert]

And I think that we already do have economic union without political union.

And that's one of the reasons why it isn't working.

[Svensson]

Well, that's where the EU attempts to get different than conventional wisdom. Remember that much of this has never been attempted before. It's cutting-edge politics albeit in a very boring way. And I think that we already do have economic union without political union.

[Robert]

Svensson, you can't have economic union without political union. The two entail each other.

[Svensson]

Yes indeed the preamble lists the scope of the document, which does include such steps as they pertain to areas like consumer protection, product improvement and safety, etc. Area where the EU already does have powers. However, the big red flags, as they a considered by the anti-europe fraction in society, integration on legislative an executive powers (political union), European army, European Government, European police forces, etc. are basically absent. There are no EU embassies in the world and there are no such plans.

[Robert]

I see. It isn't the EU policy. It just came about by accident.

Ever closer union. It means what it says. It is mentioned here :

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:326:FULL:EN:PDF#page=18

Notice "in view of further steps to be taken to advance European integration."

[Svensson]

This is 60 years old. Much of that content has been replaced by successive treaties like the ones of Maastricht, Nice or Lisbon. Besides the Rome treaty is only dealing with economic issues a describes the single market, which is something that even the leave camp wanted. More telling info can be found at Wikipedia IMO:

Negotiations to modify EU institutions began in 2001, resulting first in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which would have repealed the existing European treaties and replaced them with a "constitution". Although ratified by a majority of member states, this was abandoned after being rejected by 54.67% of French voters on 29 May 2005[7][8] and then by 61.54% of Dutch voters on 1 June 2005.[9] After a "period of reflection", member states agreed instead to maintain the existing treaties, but to amend them, salvaging a number of the reforms that had been envisaged in the constitution. An amending "reform" treaty was drawn up and signed in Lisbon in 2007.

So further integration is not current EU policy. No matter how much the UK press claim this to be the case.

[Robert]

http://www.gleichstellung.uni-freiburg.de/dokumente/treaty-of-rome

[Svensson]

Does the phrase "ever closer union" ring a bell?

It rings a bell on that this is usually used as a catch-phrase but this is not current EU policy. Post a link to a EU project, treaty or anything please.

[Robert]

Well Pistorius doesn't care, that's for sure.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I thought it was obvious I was just pulling your leg, FM. But then if athlete's foot could be abolished, wouldn't we all be at the front of the queue to vote not to keep it? I can't recall ever suffering from it myself, so my vote would be to keep the nation's feet healthy.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz!

No. I wouldn't be in the queue let alone at the front of the queue.

Someone's foot fungus is not my concern!

I'd probably vote to keep it on the grounds that it's hardly a threat to peace and prosperity and too much meddling isn't a good thing.

Whatever happened to just leaving things alone?!

[Robert]

Does the phrase "ever closer union" ring a bell?

[Svensson]

No, not at all.

[Robert]

Svensson, was that a joke?

[Svensson]

Yes Jeff the Euro currency was, and still is, driven by political considerations i.e. European unification. And the part about taking the USA as a model is in line with the reason behind the European project itself - to rival the USA. Such thinking is OK in sports, e.g.golf, where the American strength in depth meant that the only way to keep the Ryder Cup interesting was to have Europe versus the US instead of Britain versus the US. But as for the politics - well, the EU reminds me of a playground gang.

Would you mind actually posting a link to the "European Unification" project or can you maybe stop writing about this fantasy? Because AFAIK, it is just not true.

Thanks.

[Svensson]

Back on track to the issues of this thread, there was an interesting story in the New York Times today in the second (or business section) on page three regarding a new book "The Euro: How a Common Currency Threatens the Future of Europe" by an economist named Joseph E. Stiglitz. Stiglitz is basically telling in the book that there was little imput by economists when the Euro was created 17 years back, and most of the structuring was based on the views of politicians. They were considering that the main purposes of the unification of Europe's economies was to keep deficits per country down relative to their G.D.P. But this policy was really being pushed by the strongest economies, and actually had really bad effects on the weaker ones (read Greece and Spain - both actually doing somewhat better before adopting the Euro). In fact, internal legislation within member states was forced to favor other nations' advantages. Greece had to scrap a rule that fresh milk is no more than four days old. If older it had to be labelled as such. What was the real reason for this? German and Dutch dairy industries wished to ship their factory farmed milk across Europe to sell elsewhere, including Greece. In doing this they hurt the Greek dairy industry.

There is also evidence that (in the wake of Brexit) they plan to do some sort of punishment on Britain, so that they set a warning example for other members of the Union not to leave [Like Voltaire's famous description of the execution of Admiral Byng in 1757 - "To encourage the other admirals".]

Supposedly when the Euro was created, the model used was the relative growth and wealth of the U.S. with it's single currency. However this failed to notice that the U.S. grew (even with it's Civil War) in a single body of states together - unlike Europe which lacked political integration. Actually this strikes me as a strange thing to miss.

Well it is some food for thought. Any critiques?

Jeff

Since I have not read the article, or have access to it, so I can only offer a critique on what you have written here, Jeff, and there are a number of contradictions and incorrect facts here:

The European was actually created almost 30 years ago not 17. It was called the Ecu at first and the planning and implementation had started in the early nineties before its eventual launch in 2002. Over a decade of planning and preparation had gone into it an I don't believe for the second that this was not driven by economists. Of course, we could look it up to clarify but on that point, the article does not sound entirely believable to me.

This was also just after the German Unification which meant that the D-mark was introduced in Eastern Germany. Much of the German experience with this step was analysed and transferred to the Euro-project. And the situation was similar: Two very different economies had to be merged.

The article says that the Euro had been created to keep the national debt of countries like Greece or Spain down. Well, that clearly didn't work, did it? Also why should keeping the national debt down have a bad effect on an economy like Greece or Spain? So I really don't know what that part was about. Summit to say that the Euro crisis is not due to the existence of the Euro, but due to some countries not keeping their debts under control.

And finally, for something in order to be called "fresh", there clearly has to be a cut-off point. Ideally one that applies universally across the union.

So all in all, the article sounds like a typical euro-bashing hatchet job that we have seen all too often from people who need to create a fiction-based reality in order to get their points across.