A prophecy from 1998: "The Euro comes too early"

[Skybird]

Good points. I was willing to give it some good will when the Euro was launched, and at some time after the implementation it even seemed for a short while to be a thing that eventually could do some good, but I never was enthusiastic. But already before the economic crisis, I had changed my mind and oppose the Euro very much today.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225828483455

George Bernard Shaw once said if all the world's economists were laid end to end, they would never reach a conclusion. So it was astonishing when in 1998 a group of 155 well-known German economics professors issued a joint declaration, titled The Euro Comes Too Early, pleading that the introduction of the euro be postponed.

What the article does not list is that some nationsk, especially Greece, had lied and betrayed to fulfill the access criterions for the euro. This was known in brussel back then. And it was ignored.

So what worth was this so-called Euro-stability-pact from the beginning on...???

[bookworm_020]

The Euro can still be saved. There would have to be some hard decisions made, and not all of them would be politicaly popular. If they can't fix this, then the euro dream is over.

[TarJak]

Certainly looks like the poms had the right idea of being part of the union but not merging the currency.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

The Euro can still be saved.

Oh, it will be "saved" for sure, in the meaning of that like it'S introduction was no decision of reason but propagandistic politics and the desire to party over it. The Euro will be upheld in Europe, since giving it up would be a huge loss of face for the EU which is both narcissistic and self-loving, and craving for regulating things (shower heads are next!). Giving up the Euro would be admitting a huge mistake. But that is impossible, since Brussel is the shining centre of the universe, if you still haven't noticed it.

It's just that the price for keeping the Euro will grow higher and higher. And that some nations like Greece, Spain, Portugal will benefit from this silly sense of undeserved solidarity, while other nations like Germany and France will need to pay for it, more and more and more.

Wir ham's ja. In some years we will have a comparable hilarious load of debts like the US. All in the name of the Euro.

[goldorak]

The introduction of the euro was a leap of faith.
A necessary milestone on the road to a truly unified political europe.
We either could have waited for a political process that was never in the coming and then press the issue of a unified currency, or the reverse.
The first road was just impossibile to achieve even to die hard conviced europeans. So the second road was chosen. First europe as an economic entity and then god willing a unified political entity (and this second goal requires as a prerequisite to dismantle NATO). But who knows when.
I already lost hope that I will be witnessing a unified political and military europe within my lifetime.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

The introduction of the euro was a leap of faith.
A necessary milestone on the road to a truly unified political europe.
We either could have waited for a political process that was never in the coming and then press the issue of a unified currency, or the reverse.
The first road was just impossibile to achieve even to die hard conviced europeans. So the second road was chosen. First europe as an economic entity and then god willing a unified political entity (and this second goal requires as a prerequisite to dismantle NATO). But who knows when.
I already lost hope that I will be witnessing a unified political and military europe within my lifetime.

I do not even want that European superstate. I also doubt it could function. I think many do not want it. That'S why they enforced the euro against the warning. That'S why they cheated on the Lisbon dictate. Economic cooperation, okay. Superstate - big No from me.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not even want that European superstate. I also doubt it could function. I think many do not want it. That'S why they enforced the euro against the warning. That'S why they cheated on the Lisbon dictate. Economic cooperation, okay. Superstate - big No from me.

This is where we fundamentally disagree.
I want an european superstate/nation. With its own military, a democratic political system. A cohesive foreign policy etc... A real unified europe politically and economically.
Of course there will still be local differences, different languages etc...
But we share in good and bad a common history. We don't have to abandon our nation states to have a political europe. We give away some of your prerogatives as nation states, but we gain more as a unit.
If the europe you want is only an economic zone then its already failed.
60 years wasted for nothing.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

This is where we fundamentally disagree.

So be it.

I want an european superstate/nation. With its own military, a democratic political system. A cohesive foreign policy etc... A real unified europe politically and economically.
Of course there will still be local differences, different languages etc...
But we share in good and bad a common history. We don't have to abandon our nation states to have a political europe. We give away some of your prerogatives as nation states, but we gain more as a unit.

That's how it went after the fall of the wall, the former EU has fundamentally reorientated itself, away from the idea of deGaulle (that I support), towards your superstate, and the Lisbon dicate. I find the results disgusting and dysfunctional. Corruption is brimming. National egoism has not been ended, but found a stage on which to unfold an even greater evil in effect, while democracy is being eroded.

If the europe you want is only an economic zone then its already failed.
60 years wasted for nothing.

Wasted? We have learned to live in peace without waging war after war against each other. that is not time wasteded, that is not a fail. DeGaulle spoke of a europe of the coexisting/cooperating fatherlands. Sounds good enough for me.

If you can not improve the quality of human drives and ambitions, and just enforce laws and state structures on them that are not natural to them, you do not get a better way of living together. All you get is these human drives and ambitions on the scale of that superstate of yours. that means: they become overwhelming in power. Superstate means: super abuse of power, super corruption.

Also, who is gonna pay for it? We already have social wellfare states that we cannot financially support in a reasonable way anymore. We transfer personal responsibility to the state, because political parties encourage that, in a nutshell: they want a weak people that depends on social-financial gifts of the election winners that makes them feel cosy and comfortable in the social wellfare state, so that they vote these parties again next time. I can understand the Americans very well attacking this model so very much, I have much more sympathy for their disgust than some of the American board members may think when they hear me pointing criticism at their country, over other issues. The collectivism that a european superstate also would mean, is not to my taste. It smells very socialist to me. I am all for a reasonable ammount of social solidarity (else there cannot be an idea of "community"), but we already exaggerate it. And I certainly hate socialism like only few other things. Being social and social responsibility - and socialism, are two completely different things to me.

[Weigh-Man]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Certainly looks like the poms had the right idea of being part of the union but not merging the currency.

Yes, unfortunately we have a incompetent Prime Minister whose managed to completely screw our economy, regardless of the euro.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...677214,00.html

That makes five of 16 euro zone states where public finances are in a shambles -- enough to make the entire Continent uneasy. Investors fear that stable countries like Germany, Finland or the Netherlands could ultimately be affected; that they may be forced to pay for the financial errors of Greece and the others; that the euro will continue to drop against the dollar; and that the common currency will become a millstone around Europe's neck.

The threat to the euro is in no way merely a short-term one. Even if Italy and Spain avoid bankruptcy for the time being, what happens if the governments of those countries are too weak to push through the necessary reforms? Both Greece and Portugal have already been hit by serious protests as a result of budget cuts. But without much-needed reform, the gap between the strong and weak members of the euro zone threatens to get ever wider.

Star economist Nouriel Roubini, a professor at the Stern School of Business in New York, voiced fears at the Davos World Economic Forum that the common currency zone could even break apart. Not necessarily this year, or even next. But if the Continent is unable to get its deficits under control, the threat remains.

Originally Posted by goldorak

This is where we fundamentally disagree.
I want an european superstate/nation. With its own military, a democratic political system. A cohesive foreign policy etc... A real unified europe politically and economically.
Of course there will still be local differences, different languages etc...
But we share in good and bad a common history. We don't have to abandon our nation states to have a political europe. We give away some of your prerogatives as nation states, but we gain more as a unit.
If the europe you want is only an economic zone then its already failed.
60 years wasted for nothing.

A United States of Europe?
No thanks.

A common military, but everyone retains their own language?!?
How does one go about doing that?

The strong states would eventualy be forced to financialy carry the weaklings.
Sorry. Not a socialism fan.

The EU needs to be disected, and any powers it has voided.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

A United States of Europe?
No thanks.

On the contrary, if Europe is to survive then its inevitable a federal state.

A common military, but everyone retains their own language?!?
How does one go about doing that?

You misread me. I talked about different languages on a cultural plane.
Its obvious that at the political and military levels you're going to have to standardise on 1 or 2 languages.

The strong states would eventualy be forced to financialy carry the weaklings.
Sorry. Not a socialism fan.

How's that different from now ?
France and Germany are expected to continue to pay for Greece.
And they are not at all happy, since Greeks show no redemption. They will continue spending as if there were no tomorrow knowing full well they won't be kicked out of eurozone.

The EU needs to be disected, and any powers it has voided.

Absolutely not, what the EU needs is a political reform to make it more "democratic". The Comission must go or at least have it powers dramatically reduced and they have to be under scrutiny from the EU parliament.
Oh and by the way, if the English want to be part of the EU, they're either in or out. Having one foot in and one foot out is unacceptable. Maybe they should join their ex-colonies.
But they'll loose all the subsides they are getting from old europe.

[Skybird]

Not only will a federal state europe not function ( we have seen moves towards it, and now have the lisbon treaty, but we see not less but more bad from it, and we do not see governments submitting to the spirit of it, but protecting their selfish motives). They are violating their own rules, and these rules already are bad. but they do not violate these bad rules for the better, but for the even worse effect. Like they for example violated the euro access criterions already at the very beginning to have a nice show of european solidarity. Stability, as demanded in the stability pact, already was not considered as important during the access talks with - Greece, for example. Or take the megalomania many eurocrats are driven by, candidates that already have been accepted into the EU although they did not meet the self-protective deamnd of the community that candidates should not become in order by joining the EU and haunting it with it'S problems (Romania, Bulgaria, the debate on Balkan states, Ukraine, Georgia, not to mention Marocco, Algeria, Israel, Turkey), but must be in order before they join an (assumed healthy) EU.

Nations in europe have already very different opinions on military and foreign policies. The EU foreign policy is not taken serious by anyone on the world, not even Obama. It also plays no role internationally, nowhre, it is just an operetta parade of narcissistic celebs in golden operetta uniforms with sounding operetta titles and ranks. - You see the spread in interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. Enforcing them to act in unity would mean that these differences continue - but then paralyse that united army of yours. In other words you get a big european army that is prone to corruption due to the big size of that body and the huge bureaucracy behind it - and that is unlikely to act because it is unable to act on a political level. you would need a centralised european tyranny instead of that european federal state of yours. and that kind of tyranny is what is encripted in the Lisbon dictate (though for different intentions than forming a european military).

Napoleon had that idea of a united europe, btw (though under french leadership). Look how the other nations reacted to the idea. the nations, as well as the people.

The Eu is both unable and unwilling to reform - too many special interests, too much sleaze, and lobbyism, too much neo-feudal narcissim of politicians: all this speaks against effective reforms. Enforcing Lisbon was a lecture in the EU's understanding of itself, and exclusion of the European people. The system is designed that its institutions and office-holders have and are allowed to have a strong interest in not letting this kind of change of yours happening. Lisbon, and the way it way enforced against the people by betrayal and cheating, is illustration for that. The Commission's demands overrule national parliaments, national constitutions already are overruled in that, the soverioegnity of the states, the parliaments already is being overruled by Brussel right now. why do you even go to national elections anymore? You're being betrayed. How should reform come from this, why should they even want it? The European High Court sees judges with short times in office and high wages being payed, they get called into office by nations' heads of governments. They can be re-elected, though. In order to get voted in a second time, these judges decide so that it pleases the heads' of governments, it is in the judges own interest to do so, to keep their profitable posts. What kind of trust would you put into such a court? It already has made so many hilarious rulings that are illustrating an excessive bias in favour of the EU.

Democratic reform? You can wait this and your next life for it, you will not see it taking place.

I wait for somethign different. I wait for it all collapsing, and then hoping that still enough time is left to build new. I supported the idea of the EU until twelve or fifteen years ago. Today I see the EU on the same level of cultural disaster like the arriving of Islam in Europe. Cleaning up the mess after WWII, and building new on the rubble, was relatively easy, compared to the cultural destruction implemented by the EU and Islam.

Yes, likely that Germany and France will continue to pay for Greece, the Germans are stupid enough to pay endlessly anyway, due to their bad conscience. The German worker will directly subsidize the corruption of the leading class in another country. Nice prospect. I do not think the stringer will save the weaker here, not endlessly. As I see it, the weaker will pull the stronger ones into the abyss along with themselves. the socialist tendency in many european states will help in that process, and speed it up even more.

If things go "well", Greece and Portugal, and most important: Spain will financially collapse, meaning the likely crash of the Euro (that'S what makes the finaicao collpase of thse countries nevertheless a good thing, though a thing introduced by a prelude of terror). This I would welcome for only one reason: a collapsing euro would be an event of a scale and "penetrating power" that it could deliver a really destructive blow to this madness named EU. But going into that confrontation and time of collapse will be no joy ride. Neither will be the times afterwards, when we need to reorganise in the face of a smashing global competition. that risk we must accept. If the EU collapses, we have chances but also big risks to face. If we stay with the EU, we have no chance, and the risk of tyrany becomes a certainty. So I chose the first option, no matter how small the chances are.

When you drove your car so deep into the mud that only the tip of the roof antenna still is visible, you hardly can expect to get it out of there without making yourself dirty.

As the saying goes: better an end with terror, than terror without end.

[Diopos]

About Greece: Everybody knew its fiscal state. Everything else you hear is pure BS. Greece, in a sense, always payed her dues but people don't know it. For example, before entering the EU and under mostly German pressure it "allowed" her obsolete and subsidised industry to go under. Days before introducing the Euro we actually depreciated the drachma to the level "preset" by the Europeans (aka Budensbank). A lot of money was made then and believe me not by you or me. When Europe demands we respond. We never had problems regarding the price of food stuff up to the '90s. Enter the scene the European super market chains. 10 years later our supermarket prices are comparable and even higher than Berlin's with our wages almost 50-70% of our Eurozone brothers. Large part of the deficit is due to armament procurement (from Europe and the US mostly) . The vast majority of the telecommunication's infrastructure is from Siemens. I could go on and on.
Everybody knew, many made alot of money from the black sheep of Europe that Greece is portrayed to be nowdays. And many of them turned a blind eye to the lack of professionalism of the public/state agencies they had to interact with, in order to get that money. A lack of professionalism so convenient and accommodating.....
The "corrupted greeks" are a big problem mainly to the rest of the greeks and a nuisanse to the other Eurozone citizens. Not to the banks and big companies, though. Remember the Greek economy is about 3-4% of the Eurozone. I don't know the greek participation in EUrozone deficit and debt.
The question you must answer these days is "Who wants a weaker Euro?" Then you'll know what is going on in Greece, Portugal, Spain and maybe even France down the line.......
If they really wanted to help greece they should do so on a strategic base regarding relations with Turkey and the control of influx of illegal immigrants (most of them via Turkey again), but then that would lead to a lessening of armament sales in the area, and we don't want that do we, ehh?

Originally Posted by goldorak

On the contrary, if Europe is to survive then its inevitable a federal state.

If the nations of Europe are to survive, the EU must collapse.

You misread me. I talked about different languages on a cultural plane.
Its obvious that at the political and military levels you're going to have to standardise on 1 or 2 languages.

That would mean mandatory english, german, or french for all, which would lead to the eventual subjectation of the people's primary tongue.
Does't sit well for individual culture.

How's that different from now ?
France and Germany are expected to continue to pay for Greece.
And they are not at all happy, since Greeks show no redemption. They will continue spending as if there were no tomorrow knowing full well they won't be kicked out of eurozone.

You provide the perfect illustration of my point.
Why should anybody be expected to carry dead-wood?
Socialism does not strengthen the weak, but weakens the strong.

Absolutely not, what the EU needs is a political reform to make it more "democratic". The Comission must go or at least have it powers dramatically reduced and they have to be under scrutiny from the EU parliament.

The more centralized and powerful a government, the less control the people have over it ("democratic").

Oh and by the way, if the English want to be part of the EU, they're either in or out. Having one foot in and one foot out is unacceptable. Maybe they should join their ex-colonies.
But they'll loose all the subsides they are getting from old europe.

Danmark has one foot in, and one out.
I'd like to see both out. The EU is a no-win situation.