Discussion:
#Is the world ready for a United States of Europe?
(too old to reply)
3026 Dead
2012-06-05 03:28:16 UTC
Permalink
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe

[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]

Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro

With France and Germany at odds, and events moving quickly, a strategy
for fiscal and political union is being drawn upIan Traynor

Ian Traynor, Europe editor
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 June 2012 14.22 EDT

A machine counts euro notes at the Belgian central bank
Is a United States of Europe the only way to save the euro? Photograph:
Thierry Roge/Reuters

It is a measure of the speed at which the politics of the euro crisis is
changing. Only a fortnight ago all the attention was being lavished on
France's new president, François Hollande, being sworn in in Paris as
Monsieur Growth and rushing off on his first assignment to challenge
Europe's Frau Austerity, Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"We need new solutions. Everything's on the table," Hollande pledged,
meaning he would force Merkel to remove the noseclip and consider things
that give off a foul odour in Berlin, foremost among them eurobonds –
Germany solving the crisis at a stroke by agreeing to underwrite the debt
of Spain, Greece, Italy and all the rest. Fat chance.

By Saturday the growth versus austerity contest had receded as Merkel
turned the tables on Hollande.

It was her turn to declare there should be no taboos in grappling with
the hard options facing Europe's leaders as they wait to see what will
happen in Greece and Spain, and plot their next moves at what is shaping
up to be a momentous summit at the end of the month.

Merkel appeared to be calling not only Hollande's but France's bluff. By
announcing there could be no censorship of the eurozone to-do list, she
meant tabling radical, federalist steps involving gradual loss of
national sovereignty over budgetary, fiscal, social, pensions, and labour
market policies with the aim of forging a new European political union
over five to 10 years.

The USE – United States of Europe – is back. For the eurozone, at least.
Such "political union", surrendering fundamental powers to Brussels,
Luxembourg and Strasbourg, has always been several steps too far for the
French to consider.

But Berlin is signalling that if it is to carry the can for what it sees
as the failures of others there will need to be incremental but major
integrationist moves towards a banking, fiscal, and ultimately political
union in the eurozone.

It is a divisive and contested notion which Merkel did not always favour.
In the heat of the crisis, however, she now appears to see no alternative.

The next three weeks will bring frantic activity to this end as a quartet
of senior EU fixers race from capital to capital sounding out the scope
of the possible.

Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European council, Mario Draghi, head
of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg leader and
longstanding head of the eurogroup of single currency countries, and José
Manuel Barroso, chief of the European commission, are to deliver a
eurozone integration plan to an EU summit on 28-29 June.

All four are committed European federalists.

Before the summit there is a fateful Greek election and French
parliamentary polls, while time appears to be running out for the Spanish
banking sector. The finance minister in Madrid, Luis de Guindos, says
that the fate of the euro will be decided over these weeks in Spain and
Italy.

The quantum leap in integration being mulled will not save Greece, rescue
Spain's banks, sort out Italy, or fix the euro crisis in the short term.

The leaders may even run out of time, exhausting the reserves of
brinkmanship and last-minute calls that have characterised the "crisis
management" of the past 30 months.

But they hope that by unveiling a medium-term strategy for a fiscal and
political union in the eurozone they will convince the financial markets
of their resolve to save the euro, that the currency is irreversible, and
that the heat will be off.

The impact of "the project" will be immense, if it takes off.

Logically, you would need a new European treaty. That will be tortuous.
You would probably need a new German constitution, which may prove a step
too far.

The current perennially cited "democratic deficit" in how the EU is run
would widen exponentially without a radical overhaul of the electoral
underpinning of eurozone government. What would be the point in voting
for a government in, say, Slovenia, when in a eurozone political union
the tax, spending, pensions, or labour policies are decided in Brussels?

A much more entrenched two-speed Europe would emerge, with key decision-
taking centred in the eurozone and not in an EU of 27 or 28.

The gap between Britain and core Europe might become unbridgeable,
generating only mutual rancour and ultimately ending the UK's unhappy EU
dalliance, although the "political union" is precisely what David Cameron
and George Osborne are recommending as the "remorseless logic" of sharing
a currency.

In the third year of muddling through, the choices facing Europe's
leaders are getting starker – the death of the euro or the birth of a new
European federation.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-***@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-***@yahoogroups.com

Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Phlip
2012-06-05 03:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
In the third year of muddling through, the choices facing Europe's
leaders are getting starker – the death of the euro or the birth of a new
European federation.
Why doesn't this article mention Soros?

He's the one who gave a show-stopper speech last week pointing out the
EuroZone _can't_ set monetary policy alone, without backing it up with
administrative policy. This article is downstream from that idea.
3026 Dead
2012-06-05 03:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Post by 3026 Dead
In the third year of muddling through, the choices facing Europe's
leaders are getting starker – the death of the euro or the birth of a
new European federation.
Why doesn't this article mention Soros?
He's the one who gave a show-stopper speech last week pointing out the
EuroZone _can't_ set monetary policy alone, without backing it up with
administrative policy. This article is downstream from that idea.
I don't know why they didn't mention him, but you're quite correct. They
should have. He probably influenced Merckel to consider the idea.
Phlip
2012-06-05 03:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Why doesn't this article mention Soros?
He's the one who gave a show-stopper speech last week pointing out the
EuroZone _can't_ set monetary policy alone, without backing it up with
administrative policy. This article is downstream from that idea.
I don't know why they didn't mention him, but you're quite correct.  They
should have.  He probably influenced Merckel to consider the idea.
And then Europe will be one big civil war away from converting from a
federation to a single republic!

(BTW sociologists have always predicted our patchwork countries will
form larger, coherent federations within the next couple centuries...)
jope
2012-06-05 04:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
With France and Germany at odds, and events moving quickly, a strategy
for fiscal and political union is being drawn upIan Traynor
        Ian Traynor, Europe editor
        guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 June 2012 14.22 EDT
A machine counts euro notes at the Belgian central bank
Thierry Roge/Reuters
It is a measure of the speed at which the politics of the euro crisis is
changing. Only a fortnight ago all the attention was being lavished on
France's new president, François Hollande, being sworn in in Paris as
Monsieur Growth and rushing off on his first assignment to challenge
Europe's Frau Austerity, Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"We need new solutions. Everything's on the table," Hollande pledged,
meaning he would force Merkel to remove the noseclip and consider things
that give off a foul odour in Berlin, foremost among them eurobonds –
Germany solving the crisis at a stroke by agreeing to underwrite the debt
of Spain, Greece, Italy and all the rest. Fat chance.
By Saturday the growth versus austerity contest had receded as Merkel
turned the tables on Hollande.
It was her turn to declare there should be no taboos in grappling with
the hard options facing Europe's leaders as they wait to see what will
happen in Greece and Spain, and plot their next moves at what is shaping
up to be a momentous summit at the end of the month.
Merkel appeared to be calling not only Hollande's but France's bluff. By
announcing there could be no censorship of the eurozone to-do list, she
meant tabling radical, federalist steps involving gradual loss of
national sovereignty over budgetary, fiscal, social, pensions, and labour
market policies with the aim of forging a new European political union
over five to 10 years.
The USE – United States of Europe – is back. For the eurozone, at least.
Such "political union", surrendering fundamental powers to Brussels,
Luxembourg and Strasbourg, has always been several steps too far for the
French to consider.
But Berlin is signalling that if it is to carry the can for what it sees
as the failures of others there will need to be incremental but major
integrationist moves towards a banking, fiscal, and ultimately political
union in the eurozone.
It is a divisive and contested notion which Merkel did not always favour.
In the heat of the crisis, however, she now appears to see no alternative.
The next three weeks will bring frantic activity to this end as a quartet
of senior EU fixers race from capital to capital sounding out the scope
of the possible.
Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European council, Mario Draghi, head
of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg leader and
longstanding head of the eurogroup of single currency countries, and José
Manuel Barroso, chief of the European commission, are to deliver a
eurozone integration plan to an EU summit on 28-29 June.
All four are committed European federalists.
Before the summit there is a fateful Greek election and French
parliamentary polls, while time appears to be running out for the Spanish
banking sector. The finance minister in Madrid, Luis de Guindos, says
that the fate of the euro will be decided over these weeks in Spain and
Italy.
The quantum leap in integration being mulled will not save Greece, rescue
Spain's banks, sort out Italy, or fix the euro crisis in the short term.
The leaders may even run out of time, exhausting the reserves of
brinkmanship and last-minute calls that have characterised the "crisis
management" of the past 30 months.
But they hope that by unveiling a medium-term strategy for a fiscal and
political union in the eurozone they will convince the financial markets
of their resolve to save the euro, that the currency is irreversible, and
that the heat will be off.
The impact of "the project" will be immense, if it takes off.
Logically, you would need a new European treaty. That will be tortuous.
You would probably need a new German constitution, which may prove a step
too far.
The current perennially cited "democratic deficit" in how the EU is run
would widen exponentially without a radical overhaul of the electoral
underpinning of eurozone government. What would be the point in voting
for a government in, say, Slovenia, when in a eurozone political union
the tax, spending, pensions, or labour policies are decided in Brussels?
A much more entrenched two-speed Europe would emerge, with key decision-
taking centred in the eurozone and not in an EU of 27 or 28.
The gap between Britain and core Europe might become unbridgeable,
generating only mutual rancour and ultimately ending the UK's unhappy EU
dalliance, although the "political union" is precisely what David Cameron
and George Osborne are recommending as the "remorseless logic" of sharing
a currency.
In the third year of muddling through, the choices facing Europe's
leaders are getting starker – the death of the euro or the birth of a new
European federation.
--
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
The UK is leaning heavily on the United States.Wait till the
republicans are done.Then ,they will be begging to join.
3026 Dead
2012-06-05 05:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
With France and Germany at odds, and events moving quickly, a strategy
for fiscal and political union is being drawn upIan Traynor
        Ian Traynor, Europe editor guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 June
        2012 14.22 EDT
A machine counts euro notes at the Belgian central bank Is a United
States of Europe the only way to save the euro? Photograph: Thierry
Roge/Reuters
It is a measure of the speed at which the politics of the euro crisis
is changing. Only a fortnight ago all the attention was being lavished
on France's new president, François Hollande, being sworn in in Paris
as Monsieur Growth and rushing off on his first assignment to challenge
Europe's Frau Austerity, Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"We need new solutions. Everything's on the table," Hollande pledged,
meaning he would force Merkel to remove the noseclip and consider
things that give off a foul odour in Berlin, foremost among them
eurobonds – Germany solving the crisis at a stroke by agreeing to
underwrite the debt of Spain, Greece, Italy and all the rest. Fat
chance.
By Saturday the growth versus austerity contest had receded as Merkel
turned the tables on Hollande.
It was her turn to declare there should be no taboos in grappling with
the hard options facing Europe's leaders as they wait to see what will
happen in Greece and Spain, and plot their next moves at what is
shaping up to be a momentous summit at the end of the month.
Merkel appeared to be calling not only Hollande's but France's bluff.
By announcing there could be no censorship of the eurozone to-do list,
she meant tabling radical, federalist steps involving gradual loss of
national sovereignty over budgetary, fiscal, social, pensions, and
labour market policies with the aim of forging a new European political
union over five to 10 years.
The USE – United States of Europe – is back. For the eurozone, at least.
Such "political union", surrendering fundamental powers to Brussels,
Luxembourg and Strasbourg, has always been several steps too far for
the French to consider.
But Berlin is signalling that if it is to carry the can for what it
sees as the failures of others there will need to be incremental but
major integrationist moves towards a banking, fiscal, and ultimately
political union in the eurozone.
It is a divisive and contested notion which Merkel did not always
favour. In the heat of the crisis, however, she now appears to see no
alternative.
The next three weeks will bring frantic activity to this end as a
quartet of senior EU fixers race from capital to capital sounding out
the scope of the possible.
Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European council, Mario Draghi,
head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg
leader and longstanding head of the eurogroup of single currency
countries, and José Manuel Barroso, chief of the European commission,
are to deliver a eurozone integration plan to an EU summit on 28-29
June.
All four are committed European federalists.
Before the summit there is a fateful Greek election and French
parliamentary polls, while time appears to be running out for the
Spanish banking sector. The finance minister in Madrid, Luis de
Guindos, says that the fate of the euro will be decided over these
weeks in Spain and Italy.
The quantum leap in integration being mulled will not save Greece,
rescue Spain's banks, sort out Italy, or fix the euro crisis in the
short term.
The leaders may even run out of time, exhausting the reserves of
brinkmanship and last-minute calls that have characterised the "crisis
management" of the past 30 months.
But they hope that by unveiling a medium-term strategy for a fiscal and
political union in the eurozone they will convince the financial
markets of their resolve to save the euro, that the currency is
irreversible, and that the heat will be off.
The impact of "the project" will be immense, if it takes off.
Logically, you would need a new European treaty. That will be tortuous.
You would probably need a new German constitution, which may prove a
step too far.
The current perennially cited "democratic deficit" in how the EU is run
would widen exponentially without a radical overhaul of the electoral
underpinning of eurozone government. What would be the point in voting
for a government in, say, Slovenia, when in a eurozone political union
the tax, spending, pensions, or labour policies are decided in Brussels?
A much more entrenched two-speed Europe would emerge, with key
decision- taking centred in the eurozone and not in an EU of 27 or 28.
The gap between Britain and core Europe might become unbridgeable,
generating only mutual rancour and ultimately ending the UK's unhappy
EU dalliance, although the "political union" is precisely what David
Cameron and George Osborne are recommending as the "remorseless logic"
of sharing a currency.
In the third year of muddling through, the choices facing Europe's
leaders are getting starker – the death of the euro or the birth of a
new European federation.
--
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
The UK is leaning heavily on the United States.Wait till the republicans
are done.Then ,they will be begging to join.
Which United States do you mean?
trainguard
2012-06-05 09:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
With France and Germany at odds, and events moving quickly, a strategy
for fiscal and political union is being drawn upIan Traynor
        Ian Traynor, Europe editor
        guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 June 2012 14.22 EDT
A machine counts euro notes at the Belgian central bank
Thierry Roge/Reuters
It is a measure of the speed at which the politics of the euro crisis is
changing. Only a fortnight ago all the attention was being lavished on
France's new president, François Hollande, being sworn in in Paris as
Monsieur Growth and rushing off on his first assignment to challenge
Europe's Frau Austerity, Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"We need new solutions. Everything's on the table," Hollande pledged,
meaning he would force Merkel to remove the noseclip and consider things
that give off a foul odour in Berlin, foremost among them eurobonds –
Germany solving the crisis at a stroke by agreeing to underwrite the debt
of Spain, Greece, Italy and all the rest. Fat chance.
By Saturday the growth versus austerity contest had receded as Merkel
turned the tables on Hollande.
It was her turn to declare there should be no taboos in grappling with
the hard options facing Europe's leaders as they wait to see what will
happen in Greece and Spain, and plot their next moves at what is shaping
up to be a momentous summit at the end of the month.
Merkel appeared to be calling not only Hollande's but France's bluff. By
announcing there could be no censorship of the eurozone to-do list, she
meant tabling radical, federalist steps involving gradual loss of
national sovereignty over budgetary, fiscal, social, pensions, and labour
market policies with the aim of forging a new European political union
over five to 10 years.
The USE – United States of Europe – is back. For the eurozone, at least.
Such "political union", surrendering fundamental powers to Brussels,
Luxembourg and Strasbourg, has always been several steps too far for the
French to consider.
But Berlin is signalling that if it is to carry the can for what it sees
as the failures of others there will need to be incremental but major
integrationist moves towards a banking, fiscal, and ultimately political
union in the eurozone.
It is a divisive and contested notion which Merkel did not always favour.
In the heat of the crisis, however, she now appears to see no alternative.
The next three weeks will bring frantic activity to this end as a quartet
of senior EU fixers race from capital to capital sounding out the scope
of the possible.
Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European council, Mario Draghi, head
of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg leader and
longstanding head of the eurogroup of single currency countries, and José
Manuel Barroso, chief of the European commission, are to deliver a
eurozone integration plan to an EU summit on 28-29 June.
All four are committed European federalists.
Before the summit there is a fateful Greek election and French
parliamentary polls, while time appears to be running out for the Spanish
banking sector. The finance minister in Madrid, Luis de Guindos, says
that the fate of the euro will be decided over these weeks in Spain and
Italy.
The quantum leap in integration being mulled will not save Greece, rescue
Spain's banks, sort out Italy, or fix the euro crisis in the short term.
The leaders may even run out of time, exhausting the reserves of
brinkmanship and last-minute calls that have characterised the "crisis
management" of the past 30 months.
But they hope that by unveiling a medium-term strategy for a fiscal and
political union in the eurozone they will convince the financial markets
of their resolve to save the euro, that the currency is irreversible, and
that the heat will be off.
The impact of "the project" will be immense, if it takes off.
Logically, you would need a new European treaty. That will be tortuous.
You would probably need a new German constitution, which may prove a step
too far.
The current perennially cited "democratic deficit" in how the EU is run
would widen exponentially without a radical overhaul of the electoral
underpinning of eurozone government. What would be the point in voting
for a government in, say, Slovenia, when in a eurozone political union
the tax, spending, pensions, or labour policies are decided in Brussels?
A much more entrenched two-speed Europe would emerge, with key decision-
taking centred in the eurozone and not in an EU of 27 or 28.
The gap between Britain and core Europe might become unbridgeable,
generating only mutual rancour and ultimately ending the UK's unhappy EU
dalliance, although the "political union" is precisely what David Cameron
and George Osborne are recommending as the "remorseless logic" of sharing
a currency.
In the third year of muddling through, the choices facing Europe's
leaders are getting starker – the death of the euro or the birth of a new
European federation.
I have always thought (and I am not alone in this) that the current
crisis would result in a move towards closer economic and financial
integration. The Euro enshrines an anomaly; it is a national currency
without a polity. Usually, these things happen the other way round;
the Zollverein (customs union) of the German Confederation was a
catalyst for German unification which resulted in a common currency.
This time, the problems of a common currency will be a catalyst for
European Unification. Observers have thought that this process might
take decades, but the current crisis will accelerate this.

There are, of course, two issues here, but only one has been mention.
That is the so-called 'democratic deficit. The Council of Europe will
eventually be replaced by a Federal Body. The analogy from American
history (the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the
Federal Constitution) is apt. But there will be differences. The
'President' will most likely be a constitutional head, as in Germany.
The real power will be vested in a executive officer and a cabinet
dependent upon the will of the European Parliament.

However, this Federal government will supervise the machinery
implementing these integrated powers, and here mention of the other
issue is missing. If the EU is to have ultimate oversight over the
central banks, budgets, and fiscal powers of the member states, there
must be some reciprocity. There cannot be a 'Europe made safe for
bankers'; there must also be a 'social Europe'. Consequently, minimum
standards in benefits and social services (especially health and
education) must be agreed (and these can constantly be reviewed).
Where a member state cannot maintain these standards, a system of
fiscal transfers will be developed to enable it to do so.

As for my country, it will be something of a challenge. But it is
clear the geopolitics alone indicates that Britain's destiny lies with
Europe, and not across the Atlantic. There is no other place that we
can go. And, as you say, the election of a Republican President (and
the subsequent financial disaster) would be a great help in this
project......


Dr. Barry Worthington
Post by 3026 Dead
--
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
3026 Dead
2012-06-05 14:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by trainguard
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
With France and Germany at odds, and events moving quickly, a strategy
for fiscal and political union is being drawn upIan Traynor
        Ian Traynor, Europe editor guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 June
        2012 14.22 EDT
A machine counts euro notes at the Belgian central bank Is a United
States of Europe the only way to save the euro? Photograph: Thierry
Roge/Reuters
It is a measure of the speed at which the politics of the euro crisis
is changing. Only a fortnight ago all the attention was being lavished
on France's new president, François Hollande, being sworn in in Paris
as Monsieur Growth and rushing off on his first assignment to challenge
Europe's Frau Austerity, Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"We need new solutions. Everything's on the table," Hollande pledged,
meaning he would force Merkel to remove the noseclip and consider
things that give off a foul odour in Berlin, foremost among them
eurobonds – Germany solving the crisis at a stroke by agreeing to
underwrite the debt of Spain, Greece, Italy and all the rest. Fat
chance.
By Saturday the growth versus austerity contest had receded as Merkel
turned the tables on Hollande.
It was her turn to declare there should be no taboos in grappling with
the hard options facing Europe's leaders as they wait to see what will
happen in Greece and Spain, and plot their next moves at what is
shaping up to be a momentous summit at the end of the month.
Merkel appeared to be calling not only Hollande's but France's bluff.
By announcing there could be no censorship of the eurozone to-do list,
she meant tabling radical, federalist steps involving gradual loss of
national sovereignty over budgetary, fiscal, social, pensions, and
labour market policies with the aim of forging a new European political
union over five to 10 years.
The USE – United States of Europe – is back. For the eurozone, at least.
Such "political union", surrendering fundamental powers to Brussels,
Luxembourg and Strasbourg, has always been several steps too far for
the French to consider.
But Berlin is signalling that if it is to carry the can for what it
sees as the failures of others there will need to be incremental but
major integrationist moves towards a banking, fiscal, and ultimately
political union in the eurozone.
It is a divisive and contested notion which Merkel did not always
favour. In the heat of the crisis, however, she now appears to see no
alternative.
The next three weeks will bring frantic activity to this end as a
quartet of senior EU fixers race from capital to capital sounding out
the scope of the possible.
Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European council, Mario Draghi,
head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg
leader and longstanding head of the eurogroup of single currency
countries, and José Manuel Barroso, chief of the European commission,
are to deliver a eurozone integration plan to an EU summit on 28-29
June.
All four are committed European federalists.
Before the summit there is a fateful Greek election and French
parliamentary polls, while time appears to be running out for the
Spanish banking sector. The finance minister in Madrid, Luis de
Guindos, says that the fate of the euro will be decided over these
weeks in Spain and Italy.
The quantum leap in integration being mulled will not save Greece,
rescue Spain's banks, sort out Italy, or fix the euro crisis in the
short term.
The leaders may even run out of time, exhausting the reserves of
brinkmanship and last-minute calls that have characterised the "crisis
management" of the past 30 months.
But they hope that by unveiling a medium-term strategy for a fiscal and
political union in the eurozone they will convince the financial
markets of their resolve to save the euro, that the currency is
irreversible, and that the heat will be off.
The impact of "the project" will be immense, if it takes off.
Logically, you would need a new European treaty. That will be tortuous.
You would probably need a new German constitution, which may prove a
step too far.
The current perennially cited "democratic deficit" in how the EU is run
would widen exponentially without a radical overhaul of the electoral
underpinning of eurozone government. What would be the point in voting
for a government in, say, Slovenia, when in a eurozone political union
the tax, spending, pensions, or labour policies are decided in Brussels?
A much more entrenched two-speed Europe would emerge, with key
decision- taking centred in the eurozone and not in an EU of 27 or 28.
The gap between Britain and core Europe might become unbridgeable,
generating only mutual rancour and ultimately ending the UK's unhappy
EU dalliance, although the "political union" is precisely what David
Cameron and George Osborne are recommending as the "remorseless logic"
of sharing a currency.
In the third year of muddling through, the choices facing Europe's
leaders are getting starker – the death of the euro or the birth of a
new European federation.
I have always thought (and I am not alone in this) that the current
crisis would result in a move towards closer economic and financial
integration. The Euro enshrines an anomaly; it is a national currency
without a polity. Usually, these things happen the other way round; the
Zollverein (customs union) of the German Confederation was a catalyst
for German unification which resulted in a common currency. This time,
the problems of a common currency will be a catalyst for European
Unification. Observers have thought that this process might take
decades, but the current crisis will accelerate this.
There are, of course, two issues here, but only one has been mention.
That is the so-called 'democratic deficit. The Council of Europe will
eventually be replaced by a Federal Body. The analogy from American
history (the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the Federal
Constitution) is apt. But there will be differences. The 'President'
will most likely be a constitutional head, as in Germany. The real power
will be vested in a executive officer and a cabinet dependent upon the
will of the European Parliament.
However, this Federal government will supervise the machinery
implementing these integrated powers, and here mention of the other
issue is missing. If the EU is to have ultimate oversight over the
central banks, budgets, and fiscal powers of the member states, there
must be some reciprocity. There cannot be a 'Europe made safe for
bankers'; there must also be a 'social Europe'. Consequently, minimum
standards in benefits and social services (especially health and
education) must be agreed (and these can constantly be reviewed). Where
a member state cannot maintain these standards, a system of fiscal
transfers will be developed to enable it to do so.
As for my country, it will be something of a challenge. But it is clear
the geopolitics alone indicates that Britain's destiny lies with Europe,
and not across the Atlantic. There is no other place that we can go.
And, as you say, the election of a Republican President (and the
subsequent financial disaster) would be a great help in this
project......
I think some of the same currents will be in play as were seen at the uS
Constitutional Convention. The smaller states and going to want a say
disproportionate to their power and population in order to avoid being
subsumed by the larger states (you'll hear talk of a Fourth Reich, no
doubt). You could even end up with a bicameral setup like America's,
where the lower house represents on a per capita basis, and the upper has
two members representing each country. In America, the upper house
members were appointed by state governors, rather than elected, right up
until this past century.

They'll dip their toes into the democracy aspect gingerly, perhaps even
having a committee to interpret the will of the people the way America
does, in case the people should actually...you know...express a will.
That might even be a good idea if they put a sundowner clause in it,
eliminating the Electoral College after ten years or so.

I'm generally in favor of a European federation (the devil is in the
details, of course). In America, it has worked well--only one major war
in nearly 250 years, and peace and prosperity that none of the states, as
individual states, could even dream of.
Post by trainguard
Dr. Barry Worthington
Post by 3026 Dead
--
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Phlip
2012-06-05 15:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
I think some of the same currents will be in play as were seen at the uS
Constitutional Convention.  The smaller states and going to want a say
disproportionate to their power and population in order to avoid being
subsumed by the larger states (you'll hear talk of a Fourth Reich, no
doubt).
Gee, I wonder what the Bilderbergers will be discussing at their
upcoming global retreat this year...
3026 Dead
2012-06-05 17:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Post by 3026 Dead
I think some of the same currents will be in play as were seen at the
uS Constitutional Convention.  The smaller states and going to want a
say disproportionate to their power and population in order to avoid
being subsumed by the larger states (you'll hear talk of a Fourth
Reich, no doubt).
Gee, I wonder what the Bilderbergers will be discussing at their
upcoming global retreat this year...
Oh, the weather. That the Mets finally got a no-hitter. Game of
Thrones.

The usual stuff.
David Hartung
2012-06-05 12:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
True, and the important fact to remember when the Constitution was
written is that the individual states had to voluntarily ratify the
Constitution before they came under its authority. Will the same happen
in Europe?

Can you truly see France, Italy and the like surrendering their
sovereignty and ability to manage or mismanage their resources, to a
central government?
3026 Dead
2012-06-05 14:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
True, and the important fact to remember when the Constitution was
written is that the individual states had to voluntarily ratify the
Constitution before they came under its authority. Will the same happen
in Europe?
For a federation? Almost certainly.
Post by David Hartung
Can you truly see France, Italy and the like surrendering their
sovereignty and ability to manage or mismanage their resources, to a
central government?
Yeah, I can. A lot of people have had a dream of a unified Europe for
many years, and the open borders was a big step towards that.

The history of Europe as a place of small nation/states has been a very
bloody one, you see.
David Hartung
2012-06-05 15:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
Post by David Hartung
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
True, and the important fact to remember when the Constitution was
written is that the individual states had to voluntarily ratify the
Constitution before they came under its authority. Will the same happen
in Europe?
For a federation? Almost certainly.
Post by David Hartung
Can you truly see France, Italy and the like surrendering their
sovereignty and ability to manage or mismanage their resources, to a
central government?
Yeah, I can. A lot of people have had a dream of a unified Europe for
many years, and the open borders was a big step towards that.
The history of Europe as a place of small nation/states has been a very
bloody one, you see.
Yes, Europe has a bloody history, but in truth, it is no bloodier than
than most other places. What Europe also has is diverse languages,
customs and cultures. This alone makes the sort of federation you desire
unlikely.
3026 Dead
2012-06-05 17:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by 3026 Dead
Post by David Hartung
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-
united-
Post by David Hartung
Post by 3026 Dead
Post by David Hartung
Post by 3026 Dead
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of
Confederation were a dismal failure at nation-building]
True, and the important fact to remember when the Constitution was
written is that the individual states had to voluntarily ratify the
Constitution before they came under its authority. Will the same
happen in Europe?
For a federation? Almost certainly.
Post by David Hartung
Can you truly see France, Italy and the like surrendering their
sovereignty and ability to manage or mismanage their resources, to a
central government?
Yeah, I can. A lot of people have had a dream of a unified Europe for
many years, and the open borders was a big step towards that.
The history of Europe as a place of small nation/states has been a
very bloody one, you see.
Yes, Europe has a bloody history, but in truth, it is no bloodier than
than most other places. What Europe also has is diverse languages,
customs and cultures. This alone makes the sort of federation you desire
unlikely.
If you read the history of China or Russia, you'll find that they started
out the same way.
Mr.B1ack
2012-06-06 02:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.

They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
nations unto themselves.

This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.

The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
jigsaw puzzle. Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.

IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
seemed to work OK. I think the underlying reason for an EU
was that it could compete better with east asia ... but
that hasn't been true. So, go back to what worked, maybe
think about another 'union' in 50 years or so depending
on the environment.
Barry
2012-06-06 18:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
   There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
   the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
   the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
   much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
   cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
   religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
   They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
   nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
   This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
   can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
   crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
   apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
   in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
   The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
   jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....



Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
   but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
   IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
   trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
   seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
I think the underlying reason for an EU
   was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...

Does your amazing ignorance ever worry you?

Dr. Barry Worthington



but
   that hasn't been true. So, go back to what worked, maybe
   think about another 'union' in 50 years or so depending
   on the environment.
Steve
2012-06-06 19:36:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT), Barry
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
   There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
   the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
   the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
   much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
   cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
   religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
   They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
   nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
<LOL> Worthless believes that those entities were independent?
Really???
Post by Barry
   This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
   can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
   crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
   apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
   in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
   The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
   jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
   but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
   IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
   trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
   seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
I think the underlying reason for an EU
   was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
Does your amazing ignorance ever worry you?
Dr. Barry Worthington
but
   that hasn't been true. So, go back to what worked, maybe
   think about another 'union' in 50 years or so depending
   on the environment.
3026 Dead
2012-06-06 20:16:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT), Barry
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
   There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
   the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
   the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
   much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
   cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
   religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
Nor were the cultural differences insurmountable. The US itself, just
a few years later, adopted a vast French colony that it
purchased--Louisiana.
Post by Barry
   They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
   nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
   This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
   can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
   crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
   apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
   in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
   The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
   jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
   but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
   IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
   trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
   seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
Blackie lives in America, and doesn't know of any wars in Europe over
the past 140 years that it's had nation/states.
Post by Barry
I think the underlying reason for an EU
   was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
Does your amazing ignorance ever worry you?
Dr. Barry Worthington
but
   that hasn't been true. So, go back to what worked, maybe
   think about another 'union' in 50 years or so depending
   on the environment.
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.
Steve
2012-06-06 20:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3026 Dead
Blackie lives in America, and doesn't know of any wars in Europe over
the past 140 years that it's had nation/states.
That's from Porky Jamieson who recently claimed that the twin cities
was in Wisconsin.
David Hartung
2012-06-06 20:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
Post by Mr.B1ack
They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
Post by Mr.B1ack
This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
Post by Mr.B1ack
The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
Post by Mr.B1ack
but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
Post by Mr.B1ack
I think the underlying reason for an EU
was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?

For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
wy
2012-06-06 21:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
    There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
    the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
    the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
    much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
    cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
    religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
    They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
    nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
    This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
    can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
    crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
    apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
    in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
    The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
    jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
  Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
    but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
    IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
    trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
    seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
I think the underlying reason for an EU
    was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?
For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
For most of the past 236 years the US has pretty much been in one war
or another as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

What's your point?
Sid9
2012-06-06 22:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of
Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
Post by Mr.B1ack
They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
Post by Mr.B1ack
This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
Post by Mr.B1ack
The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
Post by Mr.B1ack
but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
Post by Mr.B1ack
I think the underlying reason for an EU
was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?
For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
For most of the past 236 years the US has pretty much been in one war
or another as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
What's your point?
.
.
.
Point?

Minister Hartung doesn't need a point.

The United States of America had only one internal war.

The disunited States of Europe had regular killing sprees for their god and
country.

So far, no Euro group member has made a war on another...a record for all
these diverse societies.
3026 Dead
2012-06-06 22:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-
united-
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united
States found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of
Confederation were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
    There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised the
    nation under the Articles of Confederation and later the USA
    were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty much all having
    been 'England' for a long time. Similar cultures, similar
    economics, similar educations, similar religion - except for
    the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
    They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
    nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
    This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You can
    get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by crossing a
    border. Being packed-in together for so long apparently
    encouraged them to maximize certain differences in the
    interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
    The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis jigsaw
    puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
  Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
    but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
    IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
    trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That seemed
    to work OK.
No it didn't!
I think the underlying reason for an EU
    was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?
For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
For most of the past 236 years the US has pretty much been in one war or
another as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
What's your point?
Note that the two biggest ones were caused by warring European states.

So since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, how many wars amongst the
provinces has Canada had?

The colonies that make up America have had one war since 1776 amongst
themselves, and Canada last saw a rebellion in 1837--thirty years before
Confederation.
David Hartung
2012-06-07 02:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
Post by Mr.B1ack
They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
Post by Mr.B1ack
This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
Post by Mr.B1ack
The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
Post by Mr.B1ack
but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
Post by Mr.B1ack
I think the underlying reason for an EU
was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?
For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
For most of the past 236 years the US has pretty much been in one war
or another as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
What's your point?
Europe has been devastated by one war after another for hundreds of
years. For this reason, I question Dr. Worthington's assessment that the
two "world wars" of the 20th century were a driving force behind the
formation of the European Union.
wy
2012-06-07 02:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
     There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
     the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
     the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
     much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
     cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
     religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
     They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
     nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
     This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
     can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
     crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
     apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
     in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
     The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
     jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
   Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
     but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
     IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
     trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
     seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
I think the underlying reason for an EU
     was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?
For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
For most of the past 236 years the US has pretty much been in one war
or another as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
What's your point?
Europe has been devastated by one war after another for hundreds of
years. For this reason, I question Dr. Worthington's assessment that the
two "world wars" of the 20th century were a driving force behind the
formation of the European Union.
Well, yeah, it was. After all those countless wars, the two world
wars were a culmination of what was no longer tolerable in Europe,
having been the ever-ongoing and increasingly more barbaric
destruction of lives and property throughout the regions. Hitler was
a kind of godsend, in that it finally woke up Europe into realizing
that the madness could no longer continue, especially when much larger
populations were being affected, thus more deaths resulting, by more
destructive arms in the 20th century than in any previous century, and
this was something even Churchill finally recognized when he called
for a United States of Europe shortly after WWII. The concept of a
USE itself wasn't really new as it had early philosophical, if not
political, origins dating back to WWI, when the Pan Europa Movement
became a premature but failed start in the direction of uniting Europe
between the two wars. I'm sure any Wiki entry on any of the key words
I provided will fill you in on the rest.
3026 Dead
2012-06-07 05:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-
united-
Post by David Hartung
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united
States found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of
Confederation were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised the
nation under the Articles of Confederation and later the USA
were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty much all having
been 'England' for a long time. Similar cultures, similar
economics, similar educations, similar religion - except for
the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You can
get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by crossing a
border. Being packed-in together for so long apparently
encouraged them to maximize certain differences in the
interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis jigsaw
puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That seemed
to work OK.
No it didn't!
I think the underlying reason for an EU
was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?
For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
For most of the past 236 years the US has pretty much been in one war
or another as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
What's your point?
Europe has been devastated by one war after another for hundreds of
years. For this reason, I question Dr. Worthington's assessment that the
two "world wars" of the 20th century were a driving force behind the
formation of the European Union.
They were the two worst wars in European history in terms of numbers of
lives lost (over 40 million) and damage (uncountable). Yes, they were a
driving force toward a European Union.
trainguard
2012-06-07 06:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by wy
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-united-
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of Confederation
were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
     There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised
     the nation under the Articles of Confederation and later
     the USA were, culturally, VERY similar - having pretty
     much all having been 'England' for a long time. Similar
     cultures, similar economics, similar educations, similar
     religion - except for the accents, pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and
manufactures; others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some
States looked seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding
western frontier. Some States had long settled non-English
communities, such as Dutch or Germans; others had not.
     They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
     nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
     This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You
     can get MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by
     crossing a border. Being packed-in together for so long
     apparently encouraged them to maximize certain differences
     in the interests of having a distinct 'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
     The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis
     jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
   Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
     but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
     IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
     trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That
     seemed to work OK.
No it didn't!
I think the underlying reason for an EU
     was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?
For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
For most of the past 236 years the US has pretty much been in one war
or another as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
What's your point?
Europe has been devastated by one war after another for hundreds of
years. For this reason, I question Dr. Worthington's assessment that the
two "world wars" of the 20th century were a driving force behind the
formation of the European Union.
The First World War, and the ensuing tensions and economic dislocation
that it brought in its wake, gave rise to a Pan-European movement. Of
course, they were enthusiasts and idealists, with little influence at
the time, but two points were significant; firstly, they drew upon,
and revived, a previousy dormant tradition that dated back to
sixteenth century thinkers and the medieval concept of 'christendom',
and secondly, it prepared some of its younger members for important
roles in the later European movement.

However, it was the experience of the Second World War that was
crucial. There were, of course, two issues arising from it; how to
avoid such a chatastrophe again, and also how to cope with a powerful
revived German state. But I will concentrate on the practical steps.
Co-operation between the Nazi-occupied states began on two levels.
Some elements of the resistance movements engaged in international
collaboration (Spanish Republicans fought in Spain, for example). But
most importantly, the exile governments in London co-operated with
each other (the Benelux customs union was thrashed out at this time).
The postwar chaos provided fertile ground for further steps. A pan-
European organisation was created in response to Marshall Aid, and
various unification schemes were proposed by mainstream politicians
(even Churchill argued for a 'United States of Europe', but sadly, not
including Britain). The first concrete step, the establishment of a
European Coal and Steel Community, clearly had a political motive; the
elimination of pre-war economic rivalries, and locking German capacity
in this area into a Pan-European network that might prove the
foundation for an integrated European economy.

The rest,of course, 'is history'. Unfortunately, a history not widely
known in the United States.

Dr. Barry Worthington



- Hide quoted text -
Post by David Hartung
- Show quoted text -
David Hartung
2012-06-07 10:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by trainguard
Post by David Hartung
Europe has been devastated by one war after another for hundreds of
years. For this reason, I question Dr. Worthington's assessment that the
two "world wars" of the 20th century were a driving force behind the
formation of the European Union.
The First World War, and the ensuing tensions and economic dislocation
that it brought in its wake, gave rise to a Pan-European movement. Of
course, they were enthusiasts and idealists, with little influence at
the time, but two points were significant; firstly, they drew upon,
and revived, a previousy dormant tradition that dated back to
sixteenth century thinkers and the medieval concept of 'christendom',
and secondly, it prepared some of its younger members for important
roles in the later European movement.
However, it was the experience of the Second World War that was
crucial. There were, of course, two issues arising from it; how to
avoid such a chatastrophe again, and also how to cope with a powerful
revived German state. But I will concentrate on the practical steps.
Co-operation between the Nazi-occupied states began on two levels.
Some elements of the resistance movements engaged in international
collaboration (Spanish Republicans fought in Spain, for example). But
most importantly, the exile governments in London co-operated with
each other (the Benelux customs union was thrashed out at this time).
The postwar chaos provided fertile ground for further steps. A pan-
European organisation was created in response to Marshall Aid, and
various unification schemes were proposed by mainstream politicians
(even Churchill argued for a 'United States of Europe', but sadly, not
including Britain). The first concrete step, the establishment of a
European Coal and Steel Community, clearly had a political motive; the
elimination of pre-war economic rivalries, and locking German capacity
in this area into a Pan-European network that might prove the
foundation for an integrated European economy.
The rest,of course, 'is history'. Unfortunately, a history not widely
known in the United States.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Thank you Doc. I'm still not sure that I accept your premise, but it
does make sense, and is definitely food for thought.

3026 Dead
2012-06-06 23:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/eurozone-crisis-
united-
Post by David Hartung
Post by Barry
Post by 3026 Dead
states-europe
[Zeppnote: there ARE similarities to the situation the united States
found themselves in when it became clear the Articles of
Confederation were a dismal failure at nation-building]
Eurozone crisis: United States of Europe may be the only way to save euro
There's a serious problem here. The states that comprised the
nation under the Articles of Confederation and later the USA were,
culturally, VERY similar - having pretty much all having been
'England' for a long time. Similar cultures, similar economics,
similar educations, similar religion - except for the accents,
pretty damned 'similar'.
Oh dear! Some were dominated by the established church; others had a
nonconformist roots, and one had a large Roman Catholic population.
Some had little or nothing to do with slavery; in others it was a
developing institution. some were developing industry and manufactures;
others were overwhelmingly agrarian in nature. Some States looked
seawards; others were heavily involved in an expanding western
frontier. Some States had long settled non-English communities, such as
Dutch or Germans; others had not.
They also had spent little or no time as truely independent
nations unto themselves.
Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact? Or regional groupings prior to
independence?
This is VERY different from the situation in europe. You can get
MAJOR changes in all the abovementioned just by crossing a border.
Being packed-in together for so long apparently encouraged them to
maximize certain differences in the interests of having a distinct
'national character'.
Well, what would I know? I only live there!
The USA went together like the pieces from an Elvis jigsaw puzzle.
Discounting the Civil War, of course....
Europe is like a bunch of jigsaw pieces,
but all from DIFFERENT puzzles.
IMHO, europe should 'de-unionize' and go back to ordinary
trade/banking treaties and individual currencies. That seemed to
work OK.
No it didn't!
I think the underlying reason for an EU
was that it could compete better with east asia ...
The underlying reason was the experience of two World Wars...
What about all the other wars?
For most of the past 2000 years Europe has pretty much been in one war
or another.
Indeed so. In fact, 1945-2012 has been about the most peaceful time in
European history. A couple of relatively minor military actions (Crete,
Serbia) and the occasional social unrest, plus the cold war tensions,
which eased up by the time of Gorbychev, and that's about it. By
European standards, a walk in the park.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...