3 ms·

There is a far more serious issue at stake: The threat by the hardline creditors, most importantly Germany, as well as by 'euro-skeptics' in the UK and elsewher

There is a far more serious issue at stake: The threat by the hardline creditors, most importantly Germany, as well as by 'euro-skeptics' in the UK and elsewhere, that European integration and union are not goals and ideals, but transactional economic arrangements that are good only for the money. When is the last time you heard someone argue the political and security benefits of the EU and the costs of losing it?

nickik 11y ago
What are these politcal benefits? Security benefits, seams like the EU is more likly to cause war then to make it go away. Contrary to popular belive you can make agreements without the EU. If you want to have a security agreement, create a security agreement.
- JamesBarney 11y ago
  The people creating the EU were not mistaken that the only way to create security benefits was by creating the EU. They instead were well acquainted with a popular theory that said trade and economic interdependence reduces the risk of war. The architects of the EU wanted to increase this interdependence not for economic gain but to tie together the economies of Europe so closely that war would be next to impossible.
  - nickik 11y ago
    Yes, they were idiots. Trade does help, true. But you can agree to free trade and free movment of people WITHOUT things like common currency and sharing of debt. These things cause problems, and many people have pointed this out. There are different visions of the EU, some wanted it to be a free-trade zone others want 'United State of Europe'.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > What are these politcal benefits? Security benefits, seams like the EU is more likly to cause war then to make it go away. From what I understand, the primary purpose of the EU is politics and security. It was created by the survivors of WWI and WWII. They needed a way to prevent another European war, and the solution was to bind together into "ever closer union". It worked amazingly well -- one of the most successful acts of international relations I can think of -- war between EU states, who had been fighting each other for hundreds of years and had devastated the continent twice in the first half of the century, is now unthinkable. We were born with it and assume it, but from the perspective of 1945 and centuries before that, it's a miracle. Another way to think of it: Why not have a democratic mechanism to decide common issues? Democracy is what we believe in, and the alternative is the anarchy of the strong abusing the weak.
  - nickik 11y ago
    > It worked amazingly well -- one of the most successful acts of international relations I can think of Correlation is not Causation Your theory need some evidence. Their are a number of other factors to be considered. I can list a few if you like, change in culture, change in structure of government, military commitment to protect status quo by the dominat power (this is unliky after WW1), cold war thread and a number of other things. The EU was only founded in 1993 so you need something else to explain 1945 to 1993. The reality is that the desaster that the EU and the Eurozone have brought onto Europe has made war more likly then it has been since the last balkan war. Its the biggest economic desaster since the great depression. It has weakend the communality feeling between European Nations more then any alternative system of alliance ever could have. Its a absolut failure in every single way, by ever possible metric. > war between EU states, who had been fighting each other for hundreds of years and had devastated the continent twice in the first half of the century War was unthinkable before 1914 by many people as well. Freedom since 1870 and that was not a huge war. The only war that had three powers in it, was in 1853. People back then did absolutly not belive that a war would happen. In the Interwar years most people were absolutly certain that no war was gone happen as well. People in Britain and France could not belive that anybody was mad enougth that they would actually want to repeat the idiocy that was WW1. Sadly because of many factors a small number of people who did want to repeat the experiance came to power. This is why the Brits were so strong on Appeasement. > Why not have a democratic mechanism to decide common issues? Why is the EU so absolutly undemocratic in every way then? Why can democratic nation not make bilateral agreements to integrate economically. Why not have a bottum up democratic process, why do we have to have this horrible burocratic wanna be state? Again, EU has been a desaster in every way, the 'their was no war excuse' is absolutly weak.
jcranmer 11y ago
Sometime in the last year. Russia's recent I-can't-believe-it's-not-an-invasion of Ukraine (combined with its unabashed invasion of Georgia several years ago) has made it clear that it deeply desires political hegemony over the former Soviet Union states. The three Baltic states have cultural memories of Soviet aggression and are deeply terrified, and membership in the EU gives them both some measure of protection (outright aggression would likely trigger military response) and a political avenue to respond that means something (pushing for tough sanctions). There are other benefits. The shared currency and borders reduce costs of intra-EU trade (particularly beneficial for tiny landlocked countries like, say, Luxembourg). It's also another large public purse to raid for spending (e.g., CAP).

nickik 11y ago

What are these politcal benefits? Security benefits, seams like the EU is more likly to cause war then to make it go away. Contrary to popular belive you can make agreements without the EU. If you want to have a security agreement, create a security agreement.

JamesBarney 11y ago
The people creating the EU were not mistaken that the only way to create security benefits was by creating the EU. They instead were well acquainted with a popular theory that said trade and economic interdependence reduces the risk of war. The architects of the EU wanted to increase this interdependence not for economic gain but to tie together the economies of Europe so closely that war would be next to impossible.
- nickik 11y ago
  Yes, they were idiots. Trade does help, true. But you can agree to free trade and free movment of people WITHOUT things like common currency and sharing of debt. These things cause problems, and many people have pointed this out. There are different visions of the EU, some wanted it to be a free-trade zone others want 'United State of Europe'.
hackuser 11y ago
> What are these politcal benefits? Security benefits, seams like the EU is more likly to cause war then to make it go away. From what I understand, the primary purpose of the EU is politics and security. It was created by the survivors of WWI and WWII. They needed a way to prevent another European war, and the solution was to bind together into "ever closer union". It worked amazingly well -- one of the most successful acts of international relations I can think of -- war between EU states, who had been fighting each other for hundreds of years and had devastated the continent twice in the first half of the century, is now unthinkable. We were born with it and assume it, but from the perspective of 1945 and centuries before that, it's a miracle. Another way to think of it: Why not have a democratic mechanism to decide common issues? Democracy is what we believe in, and the alternative is the anarchy of the strong abusing the weak.
- nickik 11y ago
  > It worked amazingly well -- one of the most successful acts of international relations I can think of Correlation is not Causation Your theory need some evidence. Their are a number of other factors to be considered. I can list a few if you like, change in culture, change in structure of government, military commitment to protect status quo by the dominat power (this is unliky after WW1), cold war thread and a number of other things. The EU was only founded in 1993 so you need something else to explain 1945 to 1993. The reality is that the desaster that the EU and the Eurozone have brought onto Europe has made war more likly then it has been since the last balkan war. Its the biggest economic desaster since the great depression. It has weakend the communality feeling between European Nations more then any alternative system of alliance ever could have. Its a absolut failure in every single way, by ever possible metric. > war between EU states, who had been fighting each other for hundreds of years and had devastated the continent twice in the first half of the century War was unthinkable before 1914 by many people as well. Freedom since 1870 and that was not a huge war. The only war that had three powers in it, was in 1853. People back then did absolutly not belive that a war would happen. In the Interwar years most people were absolutly certain that no war was gone happen as well. People in Britain and France could not belive that anybody was mad enougth that they would actually want to repeat the idiocy that was WW1. Sadly because of many factors a small number of people who did want to repeat the experiance came to power. This is why the Brits were so strong on Appeasement. > Why not have a democratic mechanism to decide common issues? Why is the EU so absolutly undemocratic in every way then? Why can democratic nation not make bilateral agreements to integrate economically. Why not have a bottum up democratic process, why do we have to have this horrible burocratic wanna be state? Again, EU has been a desaster in every way, the 'their was no war excuse' is absolutly weak.

jcranmer 11y ago

Sometime in the last year. Russia's recent I-can't-believe-it's-not-an-invasion of Ukraine (combined with its unabashed invasion of Georgia several years ago) has made it clear that it deeply desires political hegemony over the former Soviet Union states. The three Baltic states have cultural memories of Soviet aggression and are deeply terrified, and membership in the EU gives them both some measure of protection (outright aggression would likely trigger military response) and a political avenue to respond that means something (pushing for tough sanctions). There are other benefits. The shared currency and borders reduce costs of intra-EU trade (particularly beneficial for tiny landlocked countries like, say, Luxembourg). It's also another large public purse to raid for spending (e.g., CAP).