Germany backs down over Greece bailout

[Thanas]

Not likely I can see, but why not desirable? Presumably an European super state would be a good thing.

Because the people involved don't agree on a long list of key issues of sovereignty. See Libya for a current example. If you had an EU super state then either a shitload of nations would be dragged into a war they don't want, likely breaking up the state, or the EU would have blocked involvement and Qaddafi would be basking on a pile of corpses and another successful suppression of dissident. The EU has already gone too far too fast for its own good. Going further would solve some problems, but its not at all realistic at the moment.

What problems would going further solve? I mean, the candidates that actually make sense now are already accepted.

[Purple]

See Libya for a current example. If you had an EU super state then either a shitload of nations would be dragged into a war they don't want, likely breaking up the state, or the EU would have blocked involvement and Qaddafi would be basking on a pile of corpses and another successful suppression of dissident. The EU has already gone too far too fast for its own good. Going further would solve some problems, but its not at all realistic at the moment.

I thought that is how democracy worked. What ever proposition is in the majority wins and the rest are dragged along into it consent or not. The situation you described happens anyway in each individual nation for each citizen. If anything, a pan European government with complete control would be much more diverse and have more power making it much more effective in things like regulating economic laws and preventing involvement in American foreign adventures.

[Zed]

See Libya for a current example. If you had an EU super state then either a shitload of nations would be dragged into a war they don't want, likely breaking up the state, or the EU would have blocked involvement and Qaddafi would be basking on a pile of corpses and another successful suppression of dissident. The EU has already gone too far too fast for its own good. Going further would solve some problems, but its not at all realistic at the moment.

I thought that is how democracy worked. What ever proposition is in the majority wins and the rest are dragged along into it consent or not. The situation you described happens anyway in each individual nation for each citizen. If anything, a pan European government with complete control would be much more diverse and have more power making it much more effective in things like regulating economic laws and preventing involvement in American foreign adventures.

I hear the people deciding whether or not they want to cede sovereignty to a pan-European state is also how democracy works. (Hint: they don't want to.)

[Simon_Jester]

I thought that is how democracy worked. What ever proposition is in the majority wins and the rest are dragged along into it consent or not. The situation you described happens anyway in each individual nation for each citizen.

All healthy democracies enshrine individual rights- there are limits on what can be done in the name of "The People"*. This is necessary and proper, because otherwise the state will start doing horrible and stupid things to people for equally horrible and stupid reasons. One minority after another will be trampled by the majority, and the result is oligarchy or anarchy- because each time a minority is ruined, the remaining majority can easily turn upon another chunk of itself, making them the new minority of victims.

In the European community, there is a similar risk of bad policy being created in the name of "Europe."** It may not be a large risk, but it's real, and it gives the European nations good reasons to want to keep a good deal of sovereignty. Making a state larger does not automatically make it better for the people living in it.

So no, you do not simply drag the minority along "consent or not," there are limits. The government's power to do things because it has majority support is limited- first by the fact that the majority will shift against it if it acts too radically, second because the minority has rights to prevent it from being crushed.
_____________

*Capitalization added to emphasize that this is a political abstraction. Because the term "the people" used as a tool of political rhetoric are rarely the same as the definition of "the people" you'd get by actually surveying individual people and averaging to get the result.

This is why politicians can assert with a straight face that The People think that farms should be collectivized, The People think the Ukraine needs to be conquered to make room for colonies, The People think the US is a Christian nation and all other religions should get the hell out, and so on.
_____________

**Like "The People," "Europe" is a political abstraction; this does not make it a bad thing, but does mean we must recognize that what is done in the interests of "Europe" may not actually be in the interests of the people who live in Europe. What politicians say "Europe" needs and what Europeans really need are not necessarily the same thing.

[Akhlut]

Not likely I can see, but why not desirable? Presumably an European super state would be a good thing.

Because the people involved don't agree on a long list of key issues of sovereignty. See Libya for a current example. If you had an EU super state then either a shitload of nations would be dragged into a war they don't want, likely breaking up the state, or the EU would have blocked involvement and Qaddafi would be basking on a pile of corpses and another successful suppression of dissident. The EU has already gone too far too fast for its own good. Going further would solve some problems, but its not at all realistic at the moment.

What problems would going further solve? I mean, the candidates that actually make sense now are already accepted.

I think he means in terms of turning the EU into something akin to the US, with European nations filling the role of states, rather than accepting new nations into the EU.

[Purple]

I think he means in terms of turning the EU into something akin to the US, with European nations filling the role of states, rather than accepting new nations into the EU.

Exatcly.

All healthy democracies enshrine individual rights- there are limits on what can be done in the name of "The People"*. This is necessary and proper, because otherwise the state will start doing horrible and stupid things to people for equally horrible and stupid reasons. One minority after another will be trampled by the majority, and the result is oligarchy or anarchy- because each time a minority is ruined, the remaining majority can easily turn upon another chunk of itself, making them the new minority of victims.

So either Europe would be a "healthy" democracy and there would be none of the problems my counterpart pointed out or it would be a faulty one in which case any problems that do ensue would not be due to the concept of a unified European state but due to the inefficient running of said state, in other words human error. Either way, this vindicates my idea.

[Simon_Jester]

All healthy democracies enshrine individual rights- there are limits on what can be done in the name of "The People"*. This is necessary and proper, because otherwise the state will start doing horrible and stupid things to people for equally horrible and stupid reasons. One minority after another will be trampled by the majority, and the result is oligarchy or anarchy- because each time a minority is ruined, the remaining majority can easily turn upon another chunk of itself, making them the new minority of victims.

So either Europe would be a "healthy" democracy and there would be none of the problems my counterpart pointed out or it would be a faulty one in which case any problems that do ensue would not be due to the concept of a unified European state but due to the inefficient running of said state, in other words human error. Either way, this vindicates my idea.

You still do not understand.

If a European superstate does not work, then this cannot simply be shrugged off as "human error" caused by the inefficient running of the state. When designing a thing, you have to start by factoring in the possibility that it will be used wrong, not design something people can't use and then blame them when it goes wrong.

Basically, a European superstate will lack some of the insulation against collective disaster that the member nations have now. This increases the dangers of mismanagement, or of demagogues in one part of the continent hurting people in other parts of the continent, or of policies that are designed to rob one part of the continent to help other parts.

Your idea, which started as "Presumably an European super state would be a good thing," would not be vindicated if a European superstate turned out to be a bad thing that hurt European people. I can't understand why you would think that that would be a vindication.

If a European superstate does work, it is not "guaranteed" to work because it's a "healthy democracy." That's getting it backwards- democracy is made healthy by building protections into it ahead of time, not be happening to get lucky. In this case, the protections that are needed are the ones that guarantee that the European nations won't exploit or harm each other in a superstate in ways that would make some of the nations regret joining it. Without those guarantees, a European superstate is likely to be a bad thing, or at least a risky thing.

So, to repeat, you say:

So either Europe would be a "healthy" democracy and there would be none of the problems my counterpart pointed out or it would be a faulty one in which case any problems that do ensue would not be due to the concept of a unified European state but due to the inefficient running of said state, in other words human error. Either way, this vindicates my idea.

And I say this entire passage makes no sense. Could you try to explain it more clearly? Because I sense that there's a plausible argument in there, but I can't find it.

[Purple]

And I say this entire passage makes no sense. Could you try to explain it more clearly? Because I sense that there's a plausible argument in there, but I can't find it.

It is perfectly sound. But allow me to repeat it in a lot more words.

A European Super State is not a flawed concept in it self. To say that is to claim that any atempt at it would be doomed to failure. I disagree with this firvently. Yes, it would need to be designed just right as you said. But that is true for any nation, democratic or not.

I think the best way to explain it is to quote you and than add just one comment of mine.

Long talk about how the thing needs to be designed just right or else it will fail.

Well duh!

[Starglider]

So either Europe would be a "healthy" democracy and there would be none of the problems my counterpart pointed out or it would be a faulty one in which case any problems that do ensue would not be due to the concept of a unified European state but due to the inefficient running of said state, in other words human error. Either way, this vindicates my idea.

Human error is inevitable. Your statement is 'I will cheerfully condemn everyone to a dysfunctional and/or authoritarian nightmare of a state, a poor copy of the very state that I spend so much time complaining about (the US), but it's ok because it's the right thing to do in principle'.

A nice thing about the EU is that it has brought down immigration barriers without removing sovereignty. So if you don't like the country you're in, you can move to a different country more to your liking with no legal hassle. This ability for individuals to escape bad policy, and to vote with their feet against corrupt and incompetent governments, would be removed by forcing the same policies on every country.

[Duckie]

I'm pretty sure, Purple, that only European people should advocate for a European superstate, due to that whole 'consent of the governed' thing. Why in the hell would I have any knowledge about what's best for East Africans? Because it makes as much sense for an American to tell Europeans that a European superstate is a good thing as for me to make authoritative suggestions on the East African Shilling and the East African Union.

I'm not a citizen of any European nation, nor do I have any interests in said countries. Someday I hope to, at which point it might make sense for me to have a detailed opinion on what Europe should do. Until then, I don't really deign to tell other people what they should be doing with their politics.

[Purple]

I'm pretty sure, Purple, that only European people should advocate for a European superstate, due to that whole 'consent of the governed' thing.

Since when did I suddenly become an American/African/Asian person?
Althou I will freely admit that if I got the chance I would gladly go off and live in North Korea. But that's just my internal communist speaking. Kind of like that guy in that movie where that English guy moves to East Germany.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm pretty sure, Purple, that only European people should advocate for a European superstate, due to that whole 'consent of the governed' thing.

Psst. I'm not sure, but I think he's from somewhere in Eastern Europe... Romania, maybe? Can't remember.

So he does have a right to an opinion on the subject, even if he's a loonie.

I'm not a citizen of any European nation, nor do I have any interests in said countries. Someday I hope to, at which point it might make sense for me to have a detailed opinion on what Europe should do. Until then, I don't really deign to tell other people what they should be doing with their politics.

Myself, I only do it when I think their schemes are so visionary as to be halfwitted...

[Duckie]

Oh, so he is! I always figured he was another ignorant American. Oh well, sorry Purple!

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, so he is! I always figured he was another ignorant American. Oh well, sorry Purple!

You can tell from the stripe of fascism. American fascists are more anarcho-fascist in inclinations, schizophrenic as that may sound.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think he means in terms of turning the EU into something akin to the US, with European nations filling the role of states, rather than accepting new nations into the EU.

That would be correct.

Its dead clear the EU has no desire at all to go any further at on the most critical part of further integration, which would be military integration. The EU rapid reaction force is a joke, and it’s been actively bypassed in favor of setting up new, task specific command structures several times even when the EU did agree to sponsor low risk peacekeepering operations. It really should be abolished to stop wasting the money on something which will never be used, even though potentially the system could save money. But this is of course only one example of the problems faced.

[Thanas]

I think most Europeans do not care about the military and rate political integration a much higher risk or priority. Military integration is not even discussed in political circles and I can only remember two measly newspaper articles about it popping up.

The most critical part of integration is rather the various civil rights, the rights of the European Parliament, the power of the commission etc.

[U-95]

I'd love for them to produce things, but right now, they cannot.

They still need to start making things. Unless they start, their government just puts them deeper into shit. There won't be a way out of this. Present-day imbalances have been consciously foistered and grown in an atmosphere of financial euphoria and believe in all-powerful markets. Either you remove them or you don't. Keeping the present structure of the Greek economy won't work anyway. They are bankrupt, as are Portugal, Ireland and Spain - asking for multibillion assistance means you're insolvent. Rectification will take years. Without any serious reform to the economy of Europe, though, the crisis will repeat, and much sooner than many expect. I would say that by 2020, another collapse will follow. More severe than this one, too.

I don't know very much about economics and if it's real, but some people has stated that Spain has a debt of 750 billion euros; if the EU has to rescue us as it did with Portugal and Greece, just imagine.

If I'm not wrong, during the 80'shttp://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.php?mode=quote&f=22&p=3529801 this country had a good heavy industry -steel mills, shipyards, automobile industries, etc.-. They were owned by the state and when Spain entered in the EU, they were forced to be privatized or closed, with the result that the regions that had them -mostly those on the northern part of the country- had to resort to other types of industries or services (ie: tourism), and not always with luck. Sum to this more and more companies outsourced (and are outsourcing) their plants to other countries with much cheaper labor costs (Morocco, China...), and you'll end with a country that's mainly based on the tertiary sector (services as tourism).

100% agree with wautd's first statement. What I hate most is that the IMF lauded Spain's model -as well as the Ireland one-, based on the construction and not in a strong industry. Anyone with a as minimal brain should have noted that it couldn't last forever, that heavy inversions should be made as soon as posible on R+D and on developing a strong industrial network, and what had to end happening happened, with the extra of the current goverment deniying the crysis until it was too late.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think most Europeans do not care about the military and rate political integration a much higher risk or priority. Military integration is not even discussed in political circles and I can only remember two measly newspaper articles about it popping up.

The most critical part of integration is rather the various civil rights, the rights of the European Parliament, the power of the commission etc.

All that means is the people in question aren’t being realistic about what they are doing, which is not even remotely surprising from everything I've ever read on the EU. Military force is what gives political power meaning in the world. The two have always gone hand in hand, and after all military integration was one of the first things ever proposed on the topic of European integration back in the 1940s and 50s. You can’t be highly politically integrated and then have one side jump into a war and not the other, doesn't work especially now that warfare involves so many formal trade embargos and blockades. It’s just a farce; but then as we've seen the EU's stability pact is also a farce and thus the Greek-Irish debacle was created. I don't think the EU will be changing much for quite some time to come in any case. Agreeing to have similar civil rights does not strike me as being real integration any more so then the US and EU agreeing on a voting age would make us integrated. Its easy stuff.

If I'm not wrong, during the 80'shttp://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.php?mode=quote&f=22&p=3529801 this country had a good heavy industry -steel mills, shipyards, automobile industries, etc.-. They were owned by the state and when Spain entered in the EU, they were forced to be privatized or closed, with the result that the regions that had them -mostly those on the northern part of the country- had to resort to other types of industries or services (ie: tourism), and not always with luck. Sum to this more and more companies outsourced (and are outsourcing) their plants to other countries with much cheaper labor costs (Morocco, China...), and you'll end with a country that's mainly based on the tertiary sector (services as tourism).

Spain did have a lot of industry at the start of the the 1980s thanks to Franco’s policies. But that hardly made it a healthy economy, look no further then all the Latin American ISI economies that fell apart. It had high inflation, high debts and very inefficient industries which could not cope with ever higher energy prices after the 1973 oil crisis. If the government hadn’t shed off the dead weight post Franco it would have probably collapsed from excessive debt long before now. The tourist trade actually led to an economic boom that helped lift Spain up from being one of the poorest countries in western Europe. The parts of the industrial economy which did work like the auto industry are still around and attracted considerable foreign investment.

[U-95]

Spain did have a lot of industry at the start of the the 1980s thanks to Franco’s policies. But that hardly made it a healthy economy, look no further then all the Latin American ISI economies that fell apart. It had high inflation, high debts and very inefficient industries which could not cope with ever higher energy prices after the 1973 oil crisis. If the government hadn’t shed off the dead weight post Franco it would have probably collapsed from excessive debt long before now. The tourist trade actually led to an economic boom that helped lift Spain up from being one of the poorest countries in western Europe. The parts of the industrial economy which did work like the auto industry are still around and attracted considerable foreign investment.

I was a child during that epoch (only remember and vaguely the riots in the regions of the north) and I didn't know that was that made the heavy industry to be so dismantled.
Agreed with what you say about the automobile industry; in fact, a few days ago Ford announced its plant here will be have work for many years.

What it's true, however, is that the industry in this country (not the heavy one, but the oriented to consumer goods and the like) could be stronger and -unfortunately and as well as in the rest of Europe, I guess- the closing of manufacturing plants as their owners prefer to outsource to other countries is being something usual.

[Thanas]

I think most Europeans do not care about the military and rate political integration a much higher risk or priority. Military integration is not even discussed in political circles and I can only remember two measly newspaper articles about it popping up.

The most critical part of integration is rather the various civil rights, the rights of the European Parliament, the power of the commission etc.

All that means is the people in question aren’t being realistic about what they are doing, which is not even remotely surprising from everything I've ever read on the EU. Military force is what gives political power meaning in the world.

I'd argue that economy is just as important. Sure, it does not allow Europe to bomb brown people whenever it wants, but it makes sure the voice is heard.

The two have always gone hand in hand, and after all military integration was one of the first things ever proposed on the topic of European integration back in the 1940s and 50s.

And yet, the first major agreement which formed the framework for what later became the EU was an economic treaty.

You can’t be highly politically integrated and then have one side jump into a war and not the other, doesn't work especially now that warfare involves so many formal trade embargos and blockades.

On that we agree. However, for Europe to pull together on those issues we need less American influence and power, as the USA (and the Brits and Poles) loves to have Europe fragmented.

It’s just a farce; but then as we've seen the EU's stability pact is also a farce and thus the Greek-Irish debacle was created. I don't think the EU will be changing much for quite some time to come in any case. Agreeing to have similar civil rights does not strike me as being real integration any more so then the US and EU agreeing on a voting age would make us integrated. Its easy stuff.

European integration goes far beyond similar civil rights etc. Yes, the integration process is a slow one, but on the other hand it creates consent. Which is, considering this is Europe, something remarkable in itself.

[Simon_Jester]

All that means is the people in question aren’t being realistic about what they are doing, which is not even remotely surprising from everything I've ever read on the EU. Military force is what gives political power meaning in the world. The two have always gone hand in hand, and after all military integration was one of the first things ever proposed on the topic of European integration back in the 1940s and 50s.

At the time, Europe was in imminent danger of being invaded by a T-54 swarm. This is no longer foremost on anyone's minds.

Europe may actually be on to something in at least trying to focus on economic strength over military strength. You cannot sustain a military without a healthy economy; the USSR tried and failed. The US is in danger of going down the same road as the upcoming 21st century ecological crises kick in and the consequences of the way we've abused our economic policies in the past 30 years come home to roost.

Europe will be in a better position to face those problems- peak oil, coping with globalization without turning into a stagnant and income-stratified society, things like that- for not obsessing over the number of smart bombs it can drop on random brown people. They're potentially more vulnerable to economic warfare, but the costs of military interventions overseas are so large that it's hard to imagine an economic threat large enough to make fighting a modern war worthwhile- even dropping bombs on someone with negligible ability to fight back (like Libya) is costing... what, hundreds of millions of dollars? Billions?

For that matter, when was the last time the US really fought a war for economic reasons, and had it turn out to be worth the dollar cost? Most of the examples I can think of were fought for, bluntly, pride- we were fighting because we By God Could Not Let Commies/Terrorists/Whatever Win. Wars like that don't pay and don't contribute materially to your ability to sustain a modern economy.

In that regard, Europe might well profit by our example, by not following it.

Gone are the days when a Western power could send a few infantry regiments overseas in a handful of troopships with periodic resupply of rifle ammunition, expect them to live off the land, and have their colonial problem sorted out within a matter of months, on the cheap. War has always been more expensive than peace, but the margin of difference has gone up as better weapons proliferate in the Third World and the techniques of guerilla warfare improve. Europe's lack of military capability to do more than fight directly in its own defense isn't going to hurt it much; inability to fight in direct defense is a problem, but most of its plausible enemies will face the same problems it does: inability to project power over someone else's objections.


Now, the fundamental questions about the EU's stability, and its ability to follow a coherent economic policy, remain salient. But if the EU turns out to be a joke, it won't be proven a joke by lack of firepower. The ability to fight a war at will anywhere on Earth is not the litmus test for whether a state is functional or not.

[Shroom Man 777]

Simons has a point. The biggest threat the EU faces today is its internal politicking and economic nonsense and crises. Sure, Libya might be a big boo-boo for it's combined pan-European panspermian military, which doesn't have enough JDAMRAAMLRSLBM9F-117/11s to win its own war of terror, but so what? Qaddafi could murderize billions of people in Libya, or he could fart in Sarkozy's general direction, either way it's a total non-threat to the EU.

It's kind of a sad thing. That the stupidities of bankers and rich folk are more cause for concern than actual human beings being slaughtered wholesale by a madman. But that's life.

[Serafina]

Wait, we need a stronger, unified military? Is anyone trying to invade us? Is it beneficial to our economic interests?
No? Then why would we need it?
There really is no point in having a superpower-military. The USA is the perfect example: All of their military actions have done nothing to advance any economic interests of them - they simply cost more than they'll ever pay back. Nor were they necessary to preserve any economic interests in the region.

The only argument for a strong military is interventionism for humanitarian reasons. Which is by itself quite problematic.

[Shroom Man 777]

Arguably the USA's strong military presence in the Middle East and Asia is of economic benefit, by likewise strengthening the positions of their allies (be it guise like Japan and South Korea, or shitpieces like the KSA and the UAE) relative to people in the USA's Bad Book.

Western Europe fell into this category, back when they needed strengthening relative to guise like the USSR.

Of course, there's a difference between carrying a big stick so no one will look at you sideways or give you shit, and willingly getting yourself into troubles like Vietraqifghanibyastan.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Wait, we need a stronger, unified military? Is anyone trying to invade us? Is it beneficial to our economic interests?
No? Then why would we need it?
There really is no point in having a superpower-military. The USA is the perfect example: All of their military actions have done nothing to advance any economic interests of them - they simply cost more than they'll ever pay back. Nor were they necessary to preserve any economic interests in the region.

The only argument for a strong military is interventionism for humanitarian reasons. Which is by itself quite problematic.

Just to make a small point - in many cases a strong(er) military isn't needed precisely due to the superpower US military subsidization.
South Korea, Japan, Germany - all those countries have a tiny amount of their GDP invested in their militaries, and can afford to do so precisely because of the "subsidy" created by the relatively very large standing us forces and support. (Which lets them get away with it, despite very large potential border threats - China, Russia, North Korea, which could cause a lot of damage, despite technological inferiority, if only due to the lack of standing military manpower).