[Sussex] United States of Europe

[larus]

It's the stated ambition of Arsenal to win the league, they don't. Having ambition and not achieving it is two different areas. I disagree that my post inferred that they have given up on it. The EU in its current format is an intergovernmental organisation, there has been no 'federalisation' as such since the Treaty of European Union. Yes, leaders such as Merkal have expressed a greater desire for fiscal union, but have not pushed for this since 2013, in fact, Merkel has come out and said it's not going to happen. France once against fiscal union, is in favour of it (under its current Finance Minister), however, the French are growingly anti-Hollande and his allies in government won't be around, it's too uncertain to say that the next lot will be in favour of fiscal union. I doubt it, as the French are notoriously protective about their sovereignty.

Just because the EU isn't heading towards deeper integration, doesn't mean they haven't given up. It is in my view, necessary; but the EU has been functioning almost ad hoc, plastering over flaws or entirely ignoring them. There is no clear direction that it is heading in, but it is certainly not being 'given up on'. The indication is that EU leaders in the core states want it, but the periphery don't.

More so, there may be many more issues regarding deepening integration which would require states to get authorisation from their population. An example of this was the creation of the Outright Monetary Transactions mechanism in 2013, the German Supreme Court believed this to be unconstitutional and challenged it. The German courts have not been particularly fond of deeper integration and that could prove costly for those who have ambitions of deepening.

As such, whilst the ambition is there. There is no indication at all that the EU is moving towards deeper integration let alone a federal state.



I'm not sure you can compare UK borders to that of the U.S given we're an island.

More so, the vast majority of migrants from the EU are economic ones; we needed them due to a skills/labour shortage.

The problem is that the citizens of the wealthy European countries (Germany, Finland, Netherlands, UK) won't allow their leaders to agree to Fiscal Union. The constitutional court in Germany won't allow this either; they've already fired warning shots across Merkels bows over QE. Nationalist parties are gaining ground all across Europe, but the elite don't seem to care.

You say that Merkel wants Fiscal Union. Do you mean standardisation of tax rates, or transfers of wealth (as per the UK)? If it's the latter, then you are wrong. This will never be accepted in Germany.

So, going back to my earlier point regarding the EURO. Europe (as it is now) can only survive if the EURO survives. The EUOR can't survive without Fiscal and Political Union, and that is not on the agenda. That's the issue, so in some way our vote may at some future date be irrelevant when the next crisis hits.

So, in my opinion, when the next recession hits, Europe is screwed. Even in the 'recovery' since the last crisis, it's not managed any sustained growth and is still below 2008 GDP levels.

You talk about Greece being uncompetitive. The normal escape mechanism for these countries is interest rates/devaluation. They have neither, so there is no way out. They have a culture of tax avoidance, and that is not going to change. This is one country. The same can be applied to Italy with it's high debt levels. France with it's social model which is unfunded and a tax system which discourages inward investment due to the high labour costs. Portugal is still struggling and Spain not much better.

 

[yxee]

Basically, that. ^^^

Monetary union without fiscal union (i.e. not allowing devaluation but retaining the no bail-out clause) will keep throwing up the same problems as Greece last year, and worse. And it would be too unpopular to remove that clause. So the Eurozone remains between a rock and a hard place. It has an internal inconsistency that people seem to have forgotten since last summer.

Britain exiting is largely irrelevant to this problem. We will be fine either way.

 

[Maldini]

4/10 for the trolling attempt.

Utter b.....ks

 

[GreersElbow]

The problem is that the citizens of the wealthy European countries (Germany, Finland, Netherlands, UK) won't allow their leaders to agree to Fiscal Union. The constitutional court in Germany won't allow this either; they've already fired warning shots across Merkels bows over QE. Nationalist parties are gaining ground all across Europe, but the elite don't seem to care.

You say that Merkel wants Fiscal Union. Do you mean standardisation of tax rates, or transfers of wealth (as per the UK)? If it's the latter, then you are wrong. This will never be accepted in Germany.

So, going back to my earlier point regarding the EURO. Europe (as it is now) can only survive if the EURO survives. The EUOR can't survive without Fiscal and Political Union, and that is not on the agenda. That's the issue, so in some way our vote may at some future date be irrelevant when the next crisis hits.

So, in my opinion, when the next recession hits, Europe is screwed. Even in the 'recovery' since the last crisis, it's not managed any sustained growth and is still below 2008 GDP levels.

You talk about Greece being uncompetitive. The normal escape mechanism for these countries is interest rates/devaluation. They have neither, so there is no way out. They have a culture of tax avoidance, and that is not going to change. This is one country. The same can be applied to Italy with it's high debt levels. France with it's social model which is unfunded and a tax system which discourages inward investment due to the high labour costs. Portugal is still struggling and Spain not much better.

I really don't know how to respond to this because you haven't read my post.

1) Merkel wanted deeper fiscal integration without specifically stating what she wanted; Eurobonds was thrown out by the Germans, so the stock standard definition of fiscal union isn't what's being referred to here. One can only imagine fiscal union through a federalist structure, such as the U.S in which a federal government grants states subsidies and transfers to maintain a symmetrical economy. That's the problem with the EMU, it's no symmetrical as there's huge differences between the core and the south.

You're absolutely right the Germans won't allow it, I refer you to my previous posts if you so wish to read them.

2) That's my point. It's the solution, but no one's paying attention to it. I refer you to my previous posts...

3) Europe cannot sustain a recovery when the next recession hits as it has no monetary flexibility, interest rates are almost 0% so would require the ECB to inject liquidity into the economy. Much like how it tried with Ireland when its banks were failing, it had to inject liquidity into Irish banks to keep them solvent and lending again.

4) Where did I say they are uncompetitive?

To summarise. Your post is basically saying what I have said.

Utter b.....ks

I guess it's out of your scope of intellect, then.

 

[Maldini]

I guess it's out of your scope of intellect, then.

Come back when you develop a sense of humour.

 

[larus]

I really don't know how to respond to this because you haven't read my post.

1) Merkel wanted deeper fiscal integration without specifically stating what she wanted; Eurobonds was thrown out by the Germans, so the stock standard definition of fiscal union isn't what's being referred to here. One can only imagine fiscal union through a federalist structure, such as the U.S in which a federal government grants states subsidies and transfers to maintain a symmetrical economy. That's the problem with the EMU, it's no symmetrical as there's huge differences between the core and the south.

You're absolutely right the Germans won't allow it, I refer you to my previous posts if you so wish to read them.

2) That's my point. It's the solution, but no one's paying attention to it. I refer you to my previous posts...

3) Europe cannot sustain a recovery when the next recession hits as it has no monetary flexibility, interest rates are almost 0% so would require the ECB to inject liquidity into the economy. Much like how it tried with Ireland when its banks were failing, it had to inject liquidity into Irish banks to keep them solvent and lending again.

4) Where did I say they are uncompetitive?

To summarise. Your post is basically saying what I have said.



I guess it's out of your scope of intellect, then.

So, if we agree (loosely) on the problems and the solution, and we also agree the the EURO in doomed to failure if the status quo continues, then Europe cannot stand still. I see only 1 of 2 possible outcomes either :
1. Full Fiscal/Politcal integration for the Eurozone.
2. The EURO fails (in it's current form) and the causes Europe to start to fragment.

They will fudge and struggle along for as long as they can, but the day of reckoning will come. So, going back to your original premise on the vote and there being no more integration (i.e. It would be the status quo), what fo you see as the future?

 

[GreersElbow]

So, if we agree (loosely) on the problems and the solution, and we also agree the the EURO in doomed to failure if the status quo continues, then Europe cannot stand still. I see only 1 of 2 possible outcomes either :
1. Full Fiscal/Politcal integration for the Eurozone.
2. The EURO fails (in it's current form) and the causes Europe to start to fragment.

They will fudge and struggle along for as long as they can, but the day of reckoning will come. So, going back to your original premise on the vote and there being no more integration (i.e. It would be the status quo), what fo you see as the future?

Essentially, yes.

My dissertation was titled "Towards Fiscal Union in the EMU? An analysis of the Sovereign Debt Crisis from an Neo-functionalist perspective" - so can provide a comprehensive reply if you wish.

The euro is essentially doomed, but not because of it the actual currency but the institutions that were built around it. They're weak and inadequate; the ECB is restricted because it's a compromise for the Germans who are notoriously (allegedly, we all know they love breaking the SGP.) fiscally conservative, due to this fiscal conservatism, there is no flexibility for it to actually pump money into the real economy. All these reports of QE are essentially incorrect, it's not quantitative easing and purchasing corporate bonds and other assets; it's buying secondary market sovereign bonds. As such, there's no scope to rapidly inject cash into regions of substantial disadvantage, such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and the Eastern European states that have joined since 2007.

To save the euro is to fix the economic imbalances within the union, that'd require full fiscal union; as you rightly pointed out previously, the German citizens and courts are reluctant. France has a bipolarity about it on the subject and the rest of the EMU is too shy of speaking up. Yaris Varafoukis never mentioned fiscal union and from his blog, is against it as well. The real issue with that comes with fiscal union is that it'll require many states to either secede competencies to an unelected bureaucracy or technocracy which manages the budget or dual channel integration; political and fiscal. But in the current political climate, that's electoral suicide. The appetite from European citizens is that they don't want more Europe, but they want to enjoy the benefits of it. That would lead to a 'United States of Europe'.

However, what do I think?

Never, the EU is going to continue limping and the Emu as such will continue to pretend it's an ostrich, which of course will suffocate. The problem with the EU is that bureaucracy know full well what is required to save the EU, the political leaders that make up the Council of Europe know full well and largely seems to be in consensus. However, they're very reluctant to speak out to their respective electorates about future integration.

The future of the EU doesn't really lie within its economic and financial crisis, but really with this deal with Turkey and the on-going terrorism crisis the EU is currently facing. Though only France and Belgium have been targets, this is largely due to their internal social problems relating to marginalisation, but what we have seen is the Schengen area come into question. With calls to close it, this breaks down a fundamental element of a currency union: free movement of goods, services, money and labour. States will begin to look inward and will attempt to claw back competencies. Germany, like usual, will roll over and let it happen; despite being a good contender to lead the way for deeper integration if it could find its own consensus on how to form a fiscal union.

 

[larus]

Essentially, yes.

My dissertation was titled "Towards Fiscal Union in the EMU? An analysis of the Sovereign Debt Crisis from an Neo-functionalist perspective" - so can provide a comprehensive reply if you wish.

The euro is essentially doomed, but not because of it the actual currency but the institutions that were built around it. They're weak and inadequate; the ECB is restricted because it's a compromise for the Germans who are notoriously (allegedly, we all know they love breaking the SGP.) fiscally conservative, due to this fiscal conservatism, there is no flexibility for it to actually pump money into the real economy. All these reports of QE are essentially incorrect, it's not quantitative easing and purchasing corporate bonds and other assets; it's buying secondary market sovereign bonds. As such, there's no scope to rapidly inject cash into regions of substantial disadvantage, such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and the Eastern European states that have joined since 2007.

To save the euro is to fix the economic imbalances within the union, that'd require full fiscal union; as you rightly pointed out previously, the German citizens and courts are reluctant. France has a bipolarity about it on the subject and the rest of the EMU is too shy of speaking up. Yaris Varafoukis never mentioned fiscal union and from his blog, is against it as well. The real issue with that comes with fiscal union is that it'll require many states to either secede competencies to an unelected bureaucracy or technocracy which manages the budget or dual channel integration; political and fiscal. But in the current political climate, that's electoral suicide. The appetite from European citizens is that they don't want more Europe, but they want to enjoy the benefits of it. That would lead to a 'United States of Europe'.

However, what do I think?

Never, the EU is going to continue limping and the Emu as such will continue to pretend it's an ostrich, which of course will suffocate. The problem with the EU is that bureaucracy know full well what is required to save the EU, the political leaders that make up the Council of Europe know full well and largely seems to be in consensus. However, they're very reluctant to speak out to their respective electorates about future integration.

The future of the EU doesn't really lie within its economic and financial crisis, but really with this deal with Turkey and the on-going terrorism crisis the EU is currently facing. Though only France and Belgium have been targets, this is largely due to their internal social problems relating to marginalisation, but what we have seen is the Schengen area come into question. With calls to close it, this breaks down a fundamental element of a currency union: free movement of goods, services, money and labour. States will begin to look inward and will attempt to claw back competencies. Germany, like usual, will roll over and let it happen; despite being a good contender to lead the way for deeper integration if it could find its own consensus on how to form a fiscal union.

I think we're singing from the same hymnn sheet. The design of Europe is a disaster; scratch beneath the veneer and rhetoric, and the level of corruption, lies and structural imbalances becomes clear. Forget about the In/Out arguments on the relative economic performance if we leave, or how much we can really control immigration; the plain facts are that the Europe/EURO structure cannot survive as it is. It is politically impossible to get all of these countries to agree to the transfer of powers from a national to a EuroState level, so, when the next crisis hits, the European institutions will be using a bucket to bail out a tsunami.

This is my main reason for wanting out. I know that Europe must either collapse or integrate politically/fiscally. As this will not happen within realistic timescales, all I see is mayhem when the collapse happens. There has never been a currency union which has worked without political/fiscal Union. They always collapse eventually.

My fear is that these things often happen swiftly, so we would be 'better' protected being outside rather than inside. If we have built up more trading relations beyond Europe, then we would have more chance of reducing the huge impacts from this eventual European collapse. I know the Euro enthusiasts won't see this, but I've not heard anyone offer a viable solution to the Euro issues, so fail to see happy outcome.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

...The real issue with that comes with fiscal union is that it'll require many states to either secede competencies to an unelected bureaucracy or technocracy which manages the budget or dual channel integration; political and fiscal. ...

 

[cunning fergus]

Essentially, yes.

My dissertation was titled "Towards Fiscal Union in the EMU? An analysis of the Sovereign Debt Crisis from an Neo-functionalist perspective" - so can provide a comprehensive reply if you wish.

The euro is essentially doomed, but not because of it the actual currency but the institutions that were built around it. They're weak and inadequate; the ECB is restricted because it's a compromise for the Germans who are notoriously (allegedly, we all know they love breaking the SGP.) fiscally conservative, due to this fiscal conservatism, there is no flexibility for it to actually pump money into the real economy. All these reports of QE are essentially incorrect, it's not quantitative easing and purchasing corporate bonds and other assets; it's buying secondary market sovereign bonds. As such, there's no scope to rapidly inject cash into regions of substantial disadvantage, such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and the Eastern European states that have joined since 2007.

To save the euro is to fix the economic imbalances within the union, that'd require full fiscal union; as you rightly pointed out previously, the German citizens and courts are reluctant. France has a bipolarity about it on the subject and the rest of the EMU is too shy of speaking up. Yaris Varafoukis never mentioned fiscal union and from his blog, is against it as well. The real issue with that comes with fiscal union is that it'll require many states to either secede competencies to an unelected bureaucracy or technocracy which manages the budget or dual channel integration; political and fiscal. But in the current political climate, that's electoral suicide. The appetite from European citizens is that they don't want more Europe, but they want to enjoy the benefits of it. That would lead to a 'United States of Europe'.

However, what do I think?

Never, the EU is going to continue limping and the Emu as such will continue to pretend it's an ostrich, which of course will suffocate. The problem with the EU is that bureaucracy know full well what is required to save the EU, the political leaders that make up the Council of Europe know full well and largely seems to be in consensus. However, they're very reluctant to speak out to their respective electorates about future integration.

The future of the EU doesn't really lie within its economic and financial crisis, but really with this deal with Turkey and the on-going terrorism crisis the EU is currently facing. Though only France and Belgium have been targets, this is largely due to their internal social problems relating to marginalisation, but what we have seen is the Schengen area come into question. With calls to close it, this breaks down a fundamental element of a currency union: free movement of goods, services, money and labour. States will begin to look inward and will attempt to claw back competencies. Germany, like usual, will roll over and let it happen; despite being a good contender to lead the way for deeper integration if it could find its own consensus on how to form a fiscal union.

I don't really understand where you are on this now, you stated there won't be more integration to a US of E, yet accept fiscal integration is needed to save the euro but think this won't happen?

If that assessment is right, then you are wrong fiscal integration is very much on the agenda, as explained by Juncker in his "state of the Union" speech a mere 6 months ago......

"As said in the Five Presidents’ Report, we will also need to look ahead at more fundamental steps with regard to the euro area. The Commission will present a White Paper on this in spring 2017. Yes, we will need to set up a Euro Area Treasury over time, which is accountable at European level."

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5614_en.htm

This speech is based upon Juncker's vision of "more Europe, more Union" and is littered with references to "convergence".

You may have a just completed a dissertation, that does not make you an expert. That's not a dig, as we know from those experts who created the euro they were wrong too. Fiscal integration is coming, maybe the first step is to pacify the UK's position so it could not destabilise integration with threats to leave..........a vote to stay and would be mean the UK would be a passive but key part of the EU that would assist in underwriting the process?

They can't step back from integration now it's only forward, even if doing so will eventually take them over the precipice.

 

[Chicken Run]

I was only saying on the main thread how desperate the out camp is getting. This is just bonkers. Are there any sane people in the out camp?

Talking of sane what is your prediction for this referendum and would you consider starting a thread with it as a title?

 

[sparkie]

Talking of sane what is your prediction for this referendum and would you consider starting a thread with it as a title?

Go large on the exact opposite ?

 

[GreersElbow]

I don't really understand where you are on this now, you stated there won't be more integration to a US of E, yet accept fiscal integration is needed to save the euro but think this won't happen?

I really don't know what to think of this, I don't think you quite understand what you mean. Of course someone can believe something, but accept it may not happen.

If that assessment is right, then you are wrong fiscal integration is very much on the agenda, as explained by Juncker in his "state of the Union" speech a mere 6 months ago......

"As said in the Five Presidents’ Report, we will also need to look ahead at more fundamental steps with regard to the euro area. The Commission will present a White Paper on this in spring 2017. Yes, we will need to set up a Euro Area Treasury over time, which is accountable at European level."

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5614_en.htm

This speech is based upon Juncker's vision of "more Europe, more Union" and is littered with references to "convergence".

Crucial word: "vision", he'd still need the support of member states, the Commission isn't as powerful as people think it is.

You may have a just completed a dissertation, that does not make you an expert. That's not a dig, as we know from those experts who created the euro they were wrong too. Fiscal integration is coming, maybe the first step is to pacify the UK's position so it could not destabilise integration with threats to leave..........a vote to stay and would be mean the UK would be a passive but key part of the EU that would assist in underwriting the process?

They can't step back from integration now it's only forward, even if doing so will eventually take them over the precipice.

Are you sure it's not a dig, because it sure as hell comes across as one; more so, where is the evidence of fiscal integration? Convergence and integration are not the same thing. Germany has already pulled back from the idea of deeper integration, do you seriously think the EU could deepen integration without the largest economy in the EU?

There is no political will for deeper integration. If there were, you'd have thought that the 5 presidents' report would have come to something. It hasn't. Instead a compromise was made and that's convergence.

 

[cunning fergus]

I really don't know what to think of this, I don't think you quite understand what you mean. Of course someone can believe something, but accept it may not happen.



Crucial word: "vision", he'd still need the support of member states, the Commission isn't as powerful as people think it is.



Are you sure it's not a dig, because it sure as hell comes across as one; more so, where is the evidence of fiscal integration? Convergence and integration are not the same thing. Germany has already pulled back from the idea of deeper integration, do you seriously think the EU could deepen integration without the largest economy in the EU?

There is no political will for deeper integration. If there were, you'd have thought that the 5 presidents' report would have come to something. It hasn't. Instead a compromise was made and that's convergence.

Your opening bid on this thread (post 28) was to call into question the articles in the press because, you had just completed a 12,500 word dissertation on the EU?

Whatever way you look at that statement I think it was pretty clear that having done that work you considered you had relevant authority on this matter; otherwise why bring it up?

But more to the point, having done this school work you now think you know better than the President of the European Commission and that fiscal integration is off the table. This is despite the evidence that fiscal integration is very much on the table, with the President of the Commission announcing that a EU treasury function is needed and a white paper due in 2017.

I agree with you to the point that it's madness, but these idiots created the currency on the first place, I don't think they are going to see sense now, these are the knobs that advocate open borders when it's been proved it aids terrorists!!!!