Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Is It Wise To Want To See The Eu Fail?
I read quite a lot of comments which express a desire to see the end of the EU and the end of the euro. I imagine that the collapse of the EU and/or euro would be devastating for Europe, and for a considerable time. It would certainly bring instability to the whole region and not just to EU members, and it could easily trigger another global crisis. Do you not think that what we should want after Brexit is stability in Europe so as to ease our path to becoming an independent trading nation again?
Answers
I spend months of each year in each of three different European countries and mix with people from several more. There is moaning everywhere both within the EU and outside it but with the notable exception of in the UK, I do not come across any suggestion that the EU should be dismantled or that the Euro is a disaster. On the other hand I hear people say, sometimes...
16:20 Mon 12th Mar 2018
I think a sudden cliff edge (oh don't Remainers love cliff edge scare stories) failure of the EU would be disastrous for Europe and the world economy. Not least because it is a ponsi scheme and whenever a con fails there is fall out. This would just be on a much larger scale.
A slow demise where the other countries make an orderly exit and a smooth end would be preferable.
A slow demise where the other countries make an orderly exit and a smooth end would be preferable.
Change brings disruption for a while; but we shouldn't fear change. Further down the line one is heading towards an improved situation. Gird the loins, accept the cost; and the benefit. Stability is great where possible and reasonable, but don't insist on forever retaining the status quo, and stagnating. Create and grab opportunity where you can.
No. It is pure spite with a bit of post-hoc rationalisation.
Europe fundamentally has a choice - go back to the "bad old days" of every nation competing with all the others (and destroying each other in the process), or make some kind of effort to do something else - create a system of interdependence to make that outcome as difficult or contained as possible.
Fundamentally, the EU is an attempt at the latter, with all of the caveats and real-world failings that the word "attempt" implies. But it's still the only shot Europe has, and it's hard to imagine an equivalent being set up if it falls.
Even if you don't think the EU is right for Britain, it is not hard to see that for Europe as a whole it is far better than the alternative.
Europe fundamentally has a choice - go back to the "bad old days" of every nation competing with all the others (and destroying each other in the process), or make some kind of effort to do something else - create a system of interdependence to make that outcome as difficult or contained as possible.
Fundamentally, the EU is an attempt at the latter, with all of the caveats and real-world failings that the word "attempt" implies. But it's still the only shot Europe has, and it's hard to imagine an equivalent being set up if it falls.
Even if you don't think the EU is right for Britain, it is not hard to see that for Europe as a whole it is far better than the alternative.
The question wasn't really about whether anyone supports the EU or not, just whether or not we should want it to fail in the near future.
I don't like cliff edge scare stories either, but I find it harder to imagine each country leaving in an orderly fashion with the last one switching the euro sign off.
I don't like cliff edge scare stories either, but I find it harder to imagine each country leaving in an orderly fashion with the last one switching the euro sign off.
There will be no orderly "withdrawal". The UK voted to do just that, and is being prevented from, and denied a controlled withdrawal, by the EUSSR itself. We will eventually have to wrench ourselves free, and all who follow will know that they will need to do the same, when the scales fall from their eyes. So the sooner the better.
kromo: "Europe fundamentally has a choice - go back to the "bad old days" of every nation competing with all the others (and destroying each other in the process), or make some kind of effort to do something else - create a system of interdependence to make that outcome as difficult or contained as possible. " - or they could simply cooperate with each other and have trading agreements etc, no surrender of sovereignty would be necessary, we could call it something like the Common Market, hang on!
“You can't have a trading bloc without barriers to non-members. It's fundamental to what a trading bloc is.”
Of course you can. There is no reason whatsoever why EU member nations cannot have frictionless trade between themselves whilst allowing individual nations to strike deals outside the bloc if it suits them. The reason for the external barriers is purely protectionist. It prevents individual nations from trading where the market suits them (without tariffs). It restricts nations who may not want to buy particular goods from an EU source (because of price or quality) from sourcing them elsewhere without penalty.
The reason the EU has introduced such draconian conditions is because of its Federalist ambitions. Its ultimate aim is to see Europe as a single nation state (where differential tariffs clearly would not work). But, as with the single currency, it has leapt to this stage without the consent of each nation’s electorate, relying instead on self-interested politicians to do the dirty on behalf of their constituents.
The problem is even more serious with the euro. The same thing has happened – the currency was introduced without a single fiscal strategy for the area being in place, without a single “bank of last resort” to support the currency and (most importantly) without recognition that the economies of the countries using the currency are widely divergent. All this was highlighted before 1999 but the warnings were brushed aside. The suggestion was that the euro would bring convergence to those diverse economies when in fact the exact opposite has occurred. The next “big event” in euroland, as the wretched currency stumbles from one "challenge" to another, will see Italy struggle with its sovereign debt crisis as the ECB's “Quantitative Easing” policy (aka printing worthless money) is ended.
Of course you can. There is no reason whatsoever why EU member nations cannot have frictionless trade between themselves whilst allowing individual nations to strike deals outside the bloc if it suits them. The reason for the external barriers is purely protectionist. It prevents individual nations from trading where the market suits them (without tariffs). It restricts nations who may not want to buy particular goods from an EU source (because of price or quality) from sourcing them elsewhere without penalty.
The reason the EU has introduced such draconian conditions is because of its Federalist ambitions. Its ultimate aim is to see Europe as a single nation state (where differential tariffs clearly would not work). But, as with the single currency, it has leapt to this stage without the consent of each nation’s electorate, relying instead on self-interested politicians to do the dirty on behalf of their constituents.
The problem is even more serious with the euro. The same thing has happened – the currency was introduced without a single fiscal strategy for the area being in place, without a single “bank of last resort” to support the currency and (most importantly) without recognition that the economies of the countries using the currency are widely divergent. All this was highlighted before 1999 but the warnings were brushed aside. The suggestion was that the euro would bring convergence to those diverse economies when in fact the exact opposite has occurred. The next “big event” in euroland, as the wretched currency stumbles from one "challenge" to another, will see Italy struggle with its sovereign debt crisis as the ECB's “Quantitative Easing” policy (aka printing worthless money) is ended.
I spend months of each year in each of three different European countries and mix with people from several more. There is moaning everywhere both within the EU and outside it but with the notable exception of in the UK, I do not come across any suggestion that the EU should be dismantled or that the Euro is a disaster. On the other hand I hear people say, sometimes less enthusiastically than at other times, that things were worse before the EU and that the Euro is useful.
Those who have never been important only aim for better times and are pleased/grateful for signs of improvement, they are free of hangups. Those who once were important miss that importance, resent its passing and long for its return - they also try to pretend it hasn't gone apparently in the hope that no-one will have noticed and will keep looking up to them. Moreover, some of the backward lookers will become really irate toward those who suggest that the importance really has gone, that the reality is one of the steady sinking of an edifice which is crumbling at the same time. Outsiders feel a mixture of embarrassment and sadness but the occupants of the clapped out has-been puff/posture all the more and hope/predict that anything and everything with the remotest chance of proving to be better than their shambles will come to a disastrous end.
The EU-Brexit subject is not so much a matter of one of the two having a patent on a solution to all ills as being a live demonstration of what can happen in the presence of a build up of frustration over tantrums not working any more accompanied by a refusal to accept (as the international comparisons show) being at best plain average rather than the best.
Those who have never been important only aim for better times and are pleased/grateful for signs of improvement, they are free of hangups. Those who once were important miss that importance, resent its passing and long for its return - they also try to pretend it hasn't gone apparently in the hope that no-one will have noticed and will keep looking up to them. Moreover, some of the backward lookers will become really irate toward those who suggest that the importance really has gone, that the reality is one of the steady sinking of an edifice which is crumbling at the same time. Outsiders feel a mixture of embarrassment and sadness but the occupants of the clapped out has-been puff/posture all the more and hope/predict that anything and everything with the remotest chance of proving to be better than their shambles will come to a disastrous end.
The EU-Brexit subject is not so much a matter of one of the two having a patent on a solution to all ills as being a live demonstration of what can happen in the presence of a build up of frustration over tantrums not working any more accompanied by a refusal to accept (as the international comparisons show) being at best plain average rather than the best.
Talking of failure and such like, has someone put in a clause to the EU withdrawal bill we have agreed to pay that it is a one time payment and covers any and all payments due for our commitments past, present and future (such as pensions etc)? We don't want them to come scrounging and demanding more when some scheme of theirs goes titas upus.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Crosswords48 mins ago
Film, Media & TV62 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.