[EU] Is the EU a country already?

[Acidbaron]

So, according to your own argument here, the problem was political, not financial. It is and never was about the money per say. And I agreed with you that and I'll paraphrase myself "It was necessary to force Greece to make the reforms necessary to stabilize its economy." Just as it will be necessary to do so with Italy. But in neither case is the issue actually one of "We don't have the money to fix this problem."

Furthermore if ANYTHING has been proven between 2009 and 2020 (including the new Crona related economic downturn) is that fiscal conservatism doesn't work, and it stifles growth and hinders recovery. Fiscal conservatism is not synonymous with fiscal responsibility, the two things are utterly disconnected and fiscal conservatism failed spectacularly at fixing any of the systemic problems of European economies, including the problems of the more "well off" economies.

A big part of that ideology hinges on it, so yes it does. That doesn't mean that austerity is the magic pill to solve everything, but when Greece on their turn showed up to how many meetings unprepared? Unwilling to talk? Forgot that large part of the crisis how the government conducted themselves, mostly because they presented themselves as good populists who were going to solve the entire thing and it wasn't going to happen completely painless, well we you get elected on such a lie, it's easy to say that fiscal conservatism doesn't work because you're going to be looking for the easiest scapegoat in sight.

I also want to point out that around that same time Portugal presented their own plan that did not include austerity and it got approved by the EU, begrudgingly and with a good amount of doubt. So it wasn't a matter of forcing any certain political ideology onto anyone, Greece simply had no plan they could put forward as they new the second they did that all those unreasonable promises they said just months ago when they got elected would be something they had to admit were unrealistic.

You're also free to explain to me how you would have solved the structural Greece problem of having many public servants employed for just about anything without shrinking that work force.

It was never presented as a problem of money, what it was presented as that if Greece continued down that path that the actual cost price of recovery would be too great and then it would become a matter of money or more specifically economic reasons. Same thing that is happening now in Italy but we now have all sort of proper alarms in place and so we reacted before it is getting there, in addition to banks being forced to have bigger reserves now which is also one of the alarms that went of to highlight issues in the Italian economic woes.

As for the EU economy as a whole and pinpointing that on fiscal conservatism, to me it just seems you have a boner for that ideology because any fool who followed just a little bit about the EU and it's economy knows it has to deal with a two speed economy and it's the reason why the Euro all in all was a bad idea for the whole region at once, that's where the entire root issue stems from and not from any sort of political ideology.


But since you have such a hard on for fiscal conservatism being "evil", do tell me how you would have stimulated reform without demanding they clean up their house first, and with cleaning up i mean reducing their spending long term on problems that went out of control like a public servant roster that was ridiculously large since you're opposed to all things austerity?

[Slant]

And yet France and Germany don't see it that way (not to even mention the UK).
Because if the North ever did something that monumentally stupid, the South would get in bed with China.

They might. And they'd suffer for it. Make no mistake, China is only interested in Germany and somewhat in France. Everything else is just means to get to the juicy core of the EU.

[Omega10]

Nations didn't complain about spending money on the others, it only became a political point after nations like Greece became a bottomless pit where no matter what amount got granted the hole simply kept getting bigger.

Becoming more like "one nation" does not mean the ABSENCE of problems. It means moving past the crap that happens and keeping it from derailing all the good stuff. Kind of like a long term marriage. Hmmm a LOT like a long term marriage.

Europe is much more peaceful as one than it was as many. Europe is a LOT more powerful as one. And with China and the US turning into a perpetual rivalry of very strong countries, you are going to need every bit of power that you can muster.

If I understand correctly, losing Britain will make EU more powerful going forward once it adjusts to the different dynamics. At one time I was hoping that India and EU would become as strong as US and China to create a counterbalance to the top two. Now I see that India is not up to the task, but maybe with some hard work and luck EU can do a good job playing that role. The EU can still make a huge difference in the way the world works. But only if it is reasonably kind of unified.

And with the way the US has been lately, I would absolutely NOT dismiss the poster who said that southern Europe might align with China should northern Europe kick them out. Where else would they go?

[Slant]

True. But they'd have no choice in the matter. I was talking about Crispin's imaginary case of the North abandoning the South. If the North dropped the Euro, all the Southern economies would crash in the chaos. The US of today cannot be expected to offer any stability, they are an agent of chaos now. You'd see the Chinese willing to drop billions in investment all over the place. Would it be crap investments that can never be repaid? Sure. But that's what would happen. And energy and food independence of northern Europe without southern Europe (either as a passage or producer) is suspect. So really, everyone would be fucked.

Northern Europe needs to sustain its periphery, just like every power has done in the history of humanity.

While I still don't buy into the whole exploitative market theory that people like to throw around (China is the biggest trade partner, not Greece. Greece is peanuts. Same with Italy. If that trade vanished, it would be a mere blip in the greater scheme of things), I agree that the whole north/south thing is rather silly. Together, the EU is a thing.

- - - Updated - - -

And with the way the US has been lately, I would absolutely NOT dismiss the poster who said that southern Europe might align with China should northern Europe kick them out. Where else would they go?

It's not going to happen. The EU treaties have one and only one method of removing countries from the Union: If they decide to leave themselves, like the UK did. The North couldn't kick any southern state out even if they wanted to. Which they don't. Emphatically do not.

Quite the opposite, the EU is beginning to assess China in a new light and we're beginning to see a push back. The question is how strong it will be. But one thing we already know, the EU isn't adverse to making strong moves that seem economically not sound based on western principles while at the same time ignoring obvious violations of western principles as long as they don't affect the EU. The EU is a bit hypocritical in that they will happily trade with China, although they violate all kinds of human rights, but they are not happy about China starting to take an interest in Europe (see the whole 5G controversy). I think the best way to describe the EU is political pragmatism. Everything is subordinate to one goal: Peace in Europe. The whole unity of the EU is the tool for that. And since the #1 goal isn't economic world dominance, it's peace in Europe, the EU will make questionable decisions to maintain that peace through unity.

One thing that was pointed out is how much China is already invested in Europe. Not worried about that one bit. The EU member states are sovereign nations. They can simply decide to freeze every Chinese asset in the EU if they need to. Will there be diplomatic and economic backlash from Peking? Sure. Does anyone else on the planet give a shit about that? No. Especially not on the North American continent, Japan or India. All of which dislike China with a passion and don't mind at all if China gets taken down a peg or two.

On the other hand, Germany is China's most important trade partner. That counts for something. As we'll soon find out. German companies are sick and tired of the Chinese shenannigans, especially about the transfer of intellectual property. That shit's going to stop within the next ten years. Some companies have already decided to close assets in China. Especially now that Germany is entering the global race for hydrogen fuel, you'll see some movement between Germany and China. It's going to be interesting.

[Mihalik]

sip

First thing first. I am not opposed to all things austerity. At no point have I said either that Greece's economy and government was fine as is, nor did I say all austerity is bad.

The point I was making that a lot of the "austerity" programs fiscal conservatives want to impose aren't grounded in economics or long term outcomes, but more often than not are primarily driven by political ideology.

Back when the Greek economy went down the drain I was very much on the side of the "harsh and immediate action" crowd.

But now, I have the benefit of decades worth of hindsight. European economic recovery post 2009 was utterly lackluster across the EU. Countries that enthusiastically implemented austerity programs ended up having very little to show for it. GDP growth, job creation and wage growth largely flatlined. Yes there was a modest recovery, and some institutional strengthening, but frankly the EU economy as a whole, underperformed.

Most GDP growth and wealth creation since 2009 either happened in countries like Poland or in countries like Spain. None of which went full blown austerity.

The bloated Greek public sector needed reform, reduction and partial privatization, but the pace imposed was ultimately too drastic, resulting in unnecessary and ultimately counter productive wealth destruction.

Instead of the shock therapy approach Greece should have been given more time and larger long term credit lines tied to strict but more gradual benchmarks. Instead of mass firings, early retirement incentives and more gradual wage cuts should have been paired with investment in technological solutions and gradual privatization.

The combined desire to "rip off the band aid" and punish the Greeks was just stupid. The harsh conditions imposed on Greece were not motivated by good fiscal policy, but by the media circus around the whole affair.

And the same people who made the Greek debt crisis the circus it was are now smelling blood in the water again and ratcheting up the exact same rethoric today, and I'm afraid they'll succeed again because much of the public seemingly learned nothing in the past 10 years.

[Omega10]

The comments here to me reinforce the idea that the EU in many ways already acts like a country. The different sides take the concept of the EU being a union quite seriously, and from what I can tell the EU is less divided than the US.

The EU is playing on the world stage now, and so it's every move is discussed and dissected and usually viewed in about the worst light possible. Yet the EU moves on. Compared to the US dollar, the EU went as high as about 1.6, then fell to a bit less than 1.1, and is now slowly rising and approaching 1.2. The US press has been ridiculing the euro since its inception and has constantly worked to predict doomsday scenarios for it. Yet the euro has been more valuable than the dollar for at least the last 10 years.

It seems to me that the EU and the euro are forces to be reckoned with today, and it seems like if anything they are likely to increase in strength and influence over the next 10 years.

[Temp name]

No. Of course not.

The definition of a country in modern times is if other countries believe you're a country. No other country actually thinks the EU is a singular country, so it isn't.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

That comes from a deep popular misunderstanding of how the EU actually works. At core the prosperity of the "richer" EU states is mostly dependent on the markets of the "poorer" member states. The "poorer" members states buy the products and services of the "richer" ones and that is then reinvested towards the lower end higher risk, higher margin economies of the "poorer" nations.

Any aid the wealthier nations provide to the poorer ones is ultimately an invested into their own economies. This is very poorly explained to the public, because it is politically convenient for the governments of the "richer" nations to have something to bitch and moan about. The UK has played that dumbass game for a while, ultimately ending up with the spectacular backfire that is Brexit.

The simple truth is, that without Poland, Spain, Italy etc countries like Belgium, Austria, Netherlands, Germany etc would be SIGNIFICANTLY poorer as most of their markets are actually located there. Not to mention that the past 30 years much of actual economic growth in Europe has happened in the "underdeveloped" frontiers of the EU...including in places like Finland which was one of the poorest regions of the EU less than 20 years ago.

Add in the massive brain and arms drain from the South and East towards the West as well.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

As for the EU being a country already, that mostly wishful thinking for now.

But maybe the Eurocrats will up the ante and at some point push Europe to war. Be it civil or against another power (China? Russia? UK? Switzerland?), that usually happened to be a defining step in cementing a country, particularly the federal and/or diverse ones. Plus a war is an excellent opportunity to create a federal taxation (that is how it came to be here).

[Crispin]

True. But they'd have no choice in the matter. I was talking about Crispin's imaginary case of the North abandoning the South. If the North dropped the Euro, all the Southern economies would crash in the chaos. The US of today cannot be expected to offer any stability, they are an agent of chaos now. You'd see the Chinese willing to drop billions in investment all over the place. Would it be crap investments that can never be repaid? Sure. But that's what would happen. And energy and food independence of northern Europe without southern Europe (either as a passage or producer) is suspect. So really, everyone would be fucked.

Northern Europe needs to sustain its periphery, just like every power has done in the history of humanity.

It's obviously not "next on the agenda". But the current handouts does nothing for the pro-eu mindset, in the countries doing the handouts.

Add cases like Poland and Hungary, who have no issues not giving 2 shits about the values of the EU, southern countries depending on handouts from the north. Then it won't be unimaginable for a situation some 20 years down the line, where the feeling of getting shit on, because some countries went borderline authoritarian, and others still can't manage to collect taxes and keep them self afloat.

The issue is how some countries perceives the EU as a trade union, and others seem to think that it's a the "go-to guy" for bailouts. For a country like Denmark, The top 5 export markets are not in south Europe, it's the US, Germany, Sweden, UK and Norway. This threat of "Cut off the south and you'll be utterly screwed!" is sound, but at some point in time, the current EU setup will be the cause of a major shift.

For the idea that China will throw money at them, I'm sure the US would see hell freeze over before letting that happen.

And keep in mind that this is not a "So in 2030 this will happen!" statement, but bailing out some countries seems to go from loans to sheer hand-outs, while others are taking the piss on the EU "looking at you Poland and Hungary", is only getting worse and not making the EU anymore popular. Luckily brexit is an absolute shitshow, and will make sure that no-one considers a referendum on article 50 anytime soon.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the EU being a country already, that mostly wishful thinking for now.

But maybe the Eurocrats will up the ante and at some point push Europe to war. Be it civil or against another power (China? Russia? UK? Switzerland?), that usually happened to be a defining step in cementing a country, particularly the federal and/or diverse ones. Plus a war is an excellent opportunity to create a federal taxation (that is how it came to be here).

The EU is in no way willing, (or fit) to fight a war, it would defeat it's main purpose, which is upholding peace.

[Slant]

One of the lessons of the Opium wars, beyond the obvious (the British are drug traders who'll kill you if you try to get sober) is that China, in all its incarnations, fundamentally believes in a very exclusionary model of sovereignty (ironically the same with Brexit Britain). "One set of rules for you and one set of rules for me" is their mantra since forever. They demand that everyone adhers by the international rules of trade while gleefully violating them in their own soil and disastrously for several decades now the greed of Western corporations has allowed them to build themselves up when they should have been blockaded until they decided to play by OUR rules.
But beyond punitive and restrictive measures, the most effective tool for both the US and the EU against China is to simply CROWD OUT their investment. Leave no space for it. Why are ports in Southern Europe in chinese hands? Because no one in the rest of Europe gave them a serious counter offer. And that is the problem. Trying to stop China from investing in Europe doesn't solve the fundamental problem that much of Southern and Eastern Europe is still in need of development and needs investment. If the US and the rest of the EU is not going to do that investment, someone will fill in that blank. It could be China, it could be Russia (heck it might be any BRIC). But it's on the EU to not even let that scenario happen. The COVID fund is a great opportunity for that to happen.

I mean... you're not wrong. But here's the thing. I'm not aware of anyone in Germany being aware that Greek ports are for sale. Like, need a port in Greece? Here's the money, now we own Piräeus. Is that how it went down? And then you'll do whatever we want? I'll notify Berlin, it's much easier to just buy Europe to create the next Reich than making war. If only we had known it was this easy...

You're fucking Greece, for god's sake. What are we supposed to do? We are not in the business of buying favours. Either you agree with our ideals or we've made a mistake with the EU and Greece specifically.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU is in no way willing, (or fit) to fight a war, it would defeat it's main purpose, which is upholding peace.

No country surprised by war is "fit" for it. But I can tell you that there is no place on the planet bar China itself that knows how to make itself fit for war and then duke it out on a big scale. It's amusing how everyone on the planet, including Europeans, seems to have forgotten how violent Europe used to be. The problem isn't that we're not able to do war. The problem is that we're too good at it. Everyone around us should thank their lucky start that nobody here got the idea to unite Europe and then go to war. Last time we had a big one, it took the entire continent and some outside help from the US to suppress ONE of our current member states. Imagine them all working together...

[Crispin]

I mean... you're not wrong. But here's the thing. I'm not aware of anyone in Germany being aware that Greek ports are for sale. Like, need a port in Greece? Here's the money, now we own Piräeus. Is that how it went down? And then you'll do whatever we want? I'll notify Berlin, it's much easier to just buy Europe to create the next Reich than making war. If only we had known it was this easy...

You're fucking Greece, for god's sake. What are we supposed to do? We are not in the business of buying favours. Either you agree with our ideals or we've made a mistake with the EU and Greece specifically.

- - - Updated - - -



No country surprised by war is "fit" for it. But I can tell you that there is no place on the planet bar China itself that knows how to make itself fit for war and then duke it out on a big scale. It's amusing how everyone on the planet, including Europeans, seems to have forgotten how violent Europe used to be. The problem isn't that we're not able to do war. The problem is that we're too good at it. Everyone around us should thank their lucky start that nobody here got the idea to unite Europe and then go to war. Last time we had a big one, it took the entire continent and some outside help from the US to suppress ONE of our current member states. Imagine them all working together...

As in fit I meant equipment wise. There is no way in hell for us to attack Russia, China or the US (As suggested in the post i replied to)

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

The EU is in no way willing, (or fit) to fight a war, it would defeat it's main purpose, which is upholding peace.

The EU has never stopped its member from waging war, nor has it eliminated wars from the European continent so far.

[Flarelaine]

I wish I could see it become one.

Alle Menschen werden Brüder.

[Crispin]

The EU has never stopped its member from waging war, nor has it eliminated wars from the European continent so far.

There's a major difference on France or the UK waging war in Afghanistan with allies, and as you put it, eurocrats pushing Europe into a war.

[Mihalik]

The issue is how some countries perceives the EU as a trade union, and others seem to think that it's a the "go-to guy" for bailouts. For a country like Denmark, The top 5 export markets are not in south Europe, it's the US, Germany, Sweden, UK and Norway. This threat of "Cut off the south and you'll be utterly screwed!" is sound, but at some point in time, the current EU setup will be the cause of a major shift.
.

That's a bit of a misunderstanding of the Danish economy. About 80% of the Danish economy is services. Primarily freight shipping and financial services.

To be as blunt as possible Denmark is a warehouse + and bank where you can do some currency speculation.

That's fine, but it also means that it's prosperity and stability depends on the ebbs and flows of global/EU trade. If Germany for example decided to ship slightly fewer products across the Atlantic tomorrow, or if there was some trading spat between Norway and the EU causing a cut back on Norwegian oil exports and agricultural imports the Danish economy would take a hit.

Denmark's wealth and prosperity is intrinsically tied to the state of European trade, and it has been so at least since the Danish-Norwegian union and the early Polish-Dutch grain trade.

So when you say 15% of Danish exports goes to Germany, once you break down what's in those exports the numbers become much more complicated as only a fraction of a fraction of those items are "Danish".

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

There's a major difference on France or the UK waging war in Afghanistan with allies, and as you put it, eurocrats pushing Europe into a war.

There is indeed plenty of capabilities, and while France and the UK remained those with the most projection power, pretty much all EU countries have been involved in military interventions abroad, save maybe for Austria, Ireland and Cyprus (but that one is pretty much still technically at war with Turkey anyway).

For the lack of a more adequate term, Eurocrats refers to those who would be able to seize power over the EU and accomplish that 200 years old dream of politically uniting the Old Continent. Founding Parents if you prefer, or Parents of the Union, whatever. Those need not come necessarily from the current Brussel apparatus, altough that City's air seems to go up to the head of those appointed there, in a more and more pronounced fashion, given their rising admonishing and power wresting towards member states, including the Franco-German pair. Plus of course they are now free from that major obstacle to federalization that was the UK.

We are at times of rising uncertainty : not only with the current Covid crisis and ensuing Depression, but the political landscapes of many major European counties, like France, Germany, Italy and Spain to name a few, have been an increasing mess ever since 2008 (Macron gave shape to void and came to power with no Party, Merkel is leaving).

Although our ageing societies are not exactly fertile ground for a revolutionary upheaval, the events in Ukraine still happened, so no one knows exactly what could happen : is the youth of today's Europe indeed becoming a single society like posted earlier? If so, why couldn't it be pushed to unite the Continent?

And its not like we are lacking in potentially existential threats, not with so many rising powers wanting to emulate events for a hundred years ago. Or a non negligible part of the population being instilled with climatic doom.

[Slant]

As in fit I meant equipment wise. There is no way in hell for us to attack Russia, China or the US (As suggested in the post i replied to)

Would you like to attack Russia anytime soon? All we need is to be able to defend our borders. I don't know about you, but I have little interest in expanding.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not really a matter of favours or principles. It's a matter of control. The Port of Piraeus IS under Cosco ownership; it held an IPO to become privately owned and Cosco got a majority bid. And it holds such a majority because when under EU mandate Greece started selling assets, it unloaded much of its share at the port and the one who bid to buy it was again, Cosco. This is the sixth busiest port in Europe. Was it not a good investment for any European shipping company?
So yeah, I am not saying that Greece would take China's side over Europe. But China has been given significant leverage over an EU member which could and should have been avoided. And they have not invested heavily only in Greece, they have done so at the very least in Italy and Portugal that I know of.
Europe should be much more aggressive about protecting its periphery (not just its members; North Africa and the Middle East are OUR periphery and we should have an equal or larger say there than China, Russia or the US). Part of the issue is dealing with the Commissions intransigence against mergers; we need to be able to compete with China and the US and that will never happen if every attempt at a significant merger to create local champions is blocked by Parliament and the Commission. US success has always been tied to the symbiotic relationship of government with the largest US corporations and China has copied that by creating publically owned China.

There is no leverage. Zero. You are a sovereign nation and the Piräeus port is just a couple buildings. You cannot sell off territory. Anytime you want, you can kick Cosco out. That's that. Why is everyone pretending that just because a Chinese private (state owned) company owns the company running the port that the actual port, the LANDMASS and the territorial rights suddenly belong to China?

Stop freaking out. There is ZERO leverage China has over you. What are they gonna do, come over and lay siege to Athens with military vessels? Yeah, I'd like see them try that.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU has never stopped its member from waging war, nor has it eliminated wars from the European continent so far.

The EU never intended to stop wars on the European Continent. Sounds like anti-EU drivel that's easily dismissed. Oh, nevermind, you're from Switzerland... I don't even know why I bother...

[ranzino]

if you are out of EU and want trade talks it is always via Brussels, you cannot communicate/negotiate with countries directly. it this regard EU acts like one country indeed.

on political stance: EU is permanent observer with enhanced participation rights (but without voting rights) at UN in addition to its 27 member states. and if G20 or something like that is in session, EU attends as its own, additional to its economy heavyweights Germany, France, Italy etc.

acknowledged as country or not, you cannot ignore EU if you want something from western and mid europe.

[zealo]

The EU has never stopped its member from waging war, nor has it eliminated wars from the European continent so far.

The purpose was never to be so infallible that it could prevent all wars on the continent pre-emptively, but to reduce the risks of another one directly between countries that could be described as great powers.

It's been 75 years since we last had a war in Europe with a character of complete and utter national and economic mobilisation between the "big boys", so to speak, we're currently in one of the most peaceful eras this continent has ever seen, where most of Europe isn't a tinderbox sparking every so often.