4 ms·

This misses the point. You could also say that monetary union between the US states makes no sense economically. The point is that the people decided to have a

This misses the point. You could also say that monetary union between the US states makes no sense economically. The point is that the people decided to have a political union and to belong to the same country, the USA. Monetary union follows. The aim is to have a federal union in Europe. In a way, going straight to monetary union is to 'force' further political union because they know full well that it requires it in order to work. It's crucial to have the economics work but economics does not control culture and politics, it's the other way round.

franch 7y ago
> The aim is to have a federal union in Europe. In a way, going straight to monetary union is to 'force' further political union because they know full well that it requires it in order to work. Sorry, but I disagree. There is no consensus whatsoever in the EU about a federal Union. There is not even consensus on a budgetary union (as in shared debt, not just having a shared currency) because it will reflect badly on states that currently have stronger economies in the EU: https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-says-no-to-euro-bonds-idUSB4N1E900N https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-say... Actually, to be fair, every time there was a popular referendum even the EU Constitution has been rejected by the population (it only passed later by the parliament): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitution_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constituti...
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  Ever closer political union has been the aim, publicly stated or not, since the early days of the treaty of Rome. They know and knew that monetary union can only lead to further political union. The main issue, or the benefit, is that it requires all countries to have a good governance. It will force Greece and friends to finally be serious.
- winter_blue 7y ago
  > every time there was a popular referendum even the EU Constitution has been rejected by the population That it was "rejected by the population" is a dishonest characterization. Referendums in Luxembourg and Spain were successful. Elected representatives in 16 other EU countries voted in favor of the Constitution. Yes, it was rejected by voters France and the Netherlands, and that killed the treaty, because establishing a Constitution requires unanimous support. So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that requires unanimous approval, failed because of that. This Wikipedia page shows the full picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#Ratification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu... [1] Anytime there's a characterization in the form of "the people" (or "the American people") it's dishonest and inaccurate, because the "people" of any large enough group hold diverse-enough opinions that you simply cannot characterize them with a broad brush. (Unless of course, you conduct referendum in which the question is affirmed unanimously by everyone in the group with a 100% quorum. Which gets quickly almost-impossible as the group's size increases.)
  - franch 7y ago
    > So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that requires unanimous approval, failed because of that. Uhm sorry no. Read the links. It was rejected by the majority of the voters both in France and the Netherlands. What happened afterwards in France was to change it slightly and make it pass by parliamentary vote instead. About the accuracy of the term "the population", I simply mean it "by the local rules for a nation wide referendum".
    - winter_blue 7y ago
      I meant a minority of the European people/countries. Whether you count by population, or by the number of countries. (a) By number of states: 18 approved it, 2 rejected it, and the rest canceled/dropped efforts as it was effectively a failure (at that point). (b) By population: Let's add together the populations of the 18 countries that approved of it, and the 2 that rejected it. I'm confident the total population of the 18 europhiles exceeds that of the 2 naysayers. We don't know how things would have fared in the rest of the EU (that dropped/canceled referendums or legislative votes on this), but of those 20 countries, a majority of both people and countries were for the EU Constitution.
christudor 7y ago
The big mistake the EU made was assuming: (i) that monetary union would foster political union, and (ii) the people of Europe actually wanted political union in the first place. I don't think either are true. I think we more or less agree with each other, by the way. It's important that the political situation matches the economic situation. I just don't think you can use the economics to force the politics, if you see what I mean?
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  Monetary union will lead to deeper political union. There is no choice. It already has.
  - christudor 7y ago
    This is not the view of Ashoka Mody in his recent book Eurotragedy.
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      The fact is that the monetary union has brought closer political integration and will continue to do so because, again, that's the only way. I think you're trying to ascribe more meaning to whatever book you've dropped the title of that it might have... (I haven't read that book but the author seems serious enough not to ignore facts)
      - christudor 7y ago
        I may be mistaken but it looks like you haven’t read the book but you’re confident in assuming I’ve somehow misunderstood it! Here’s the relevant quote in full: “British economist Nicholas Kaldor had warned as early as March 1971 that the fiscal governance system would deepen political divisions. In November 1997, Milton Friedman predicted that the euro’s flawed economics would “exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks ... into divisive political issues.” The Europeans had it backward, Friedman concluded: “Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary union imposed under unfavourable circumstances will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.””

franch 7y ago

> The aim is to have a federal union in Europe. In a way, going straight to monetary union is to 'force' further political union because they know full well that it requires it in order to work. Sorry, but I disagree. There is no consensus whatsoever in the EU about a federal Union. There is not even consensus on a budgetary union (as in shared debt, not just having a shared currency) because it will reflect badly on states that currently have stronger economies in the EU: https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-says-no-to-euro-bonds-idUSB4N1E900N https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-say... Actually, to be fair, every time there was a popular referendum even the EU Constitution has been rejected by the population (it only passed later by the parliament): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitution_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constituti...

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
Ever closer political union has been the aim, publicly stated or not, since the early days of the treaty of Rome. They know and knew that monetary union can only lead to further political union. The main issue, or the benefit, is that it requires all countries to have a good governance. It will force Greece and friends to finally be serious.
winter_blue 7y ago
> every time there was a popular referendum even the EU Constitution has been rejected by the population That it was "rejected by the population" is a dishonest characterization. Referendums in Luxembourg and Spain were successful. Elected representatives in 16 other EU countries voted in favor of the Constitution. Yes, it was rejected by voters France and the Netherlands, and that killed the treaty, because establishing a Constitution requires unanimous support. So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that requires unanimous approval, failed because of that. This Wikipedia page shows the full picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#Ratification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu... [1] Anytime there's a characterization in the form of "the people" (or "the American people") it's dishonest and inaccurate, because the "people" of any large enough group hold diverse-enough opinions that you simply cannot characterize them with a broad brush. (Unless of course, you conduct referendum in which the question is affirmed unanimously by everyone in the group with a 100% quorum. Which gets quickly almost-impossible as the group's size increases.)
- franch 7y ago
  > So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that requires unanimous approval, failed because of that. Uhm sorry no. Read the links. It was rejected by the majority of the voters both in France and the Netherlands. What happened afterwards in France was to change it slightly and make it pass by parliamentary vote instead. About the accuracy of the term "the population", I simply mean it "by the local rules for a nation wide referendum".
  - winter_blue 7y ago
    I meant a minority of the European people/countries. Whether you count by population, or by the number of countries. (a) By number of states: 18 approved it, 2 rejected it, and the rest canceled/dropped efforts as it was effectively a failure (at that point). (b) By population: Let's add together the populations of the 18 countries that approved of it, and the 2 that rejected it. I'm confident the total population of the 18 europhiles exceeds that of the 2 naysayers. We don't know how things would have fared in the rest of the EU (that dropped/canceled referendums or legislative votes on this), but of those 20 countries, a majority of both people and countries were for the EU Constitution.

christudor 7y ago

The big mistake the EU made was assuming: (i) that monetary union would foster political union, and (ii) the people of Europe actually wanted political union in the first place. I don't think either are true. I think we more or less agree with each other, by the way. It's important that the political situation matches the economic situation. I just don't think you can use the economics to force the politics, if you see what I mean?

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
Monetary union will lead to deeper political union. There is no choice. It already has.
- christudor 7y ago
  This is not the view of Ashoka Mody in his recent book Eurotragedy.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    The fact is that the monetary union has brought closer political integration and will continue to do so because, again, that's the only way. I think you're trying to ascribe more meaning to whatever book you've dropped the title of that it might have... (I haven't read that book but the author seems serious enough not to ignore facts)
    - christudor 7y ago
      I may be mistaken but it looks like you haven’t read the book but you’re confident in assuming I’ve somehow misunderstood it! Here’s the relevant quote in full: “British economist Nicholas Kaldor had warned as early as March 1971 that the fiscal governance system would deepen political divisions. In November 1997, Milton Friedman predicted that the euro’s flawed economics would “exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks ... into divisive political issues.” The Europeans had it backward, Friedman concluded: “Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary union imposed under unfavourable circumstances will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.””