IGX

Given that all three of those points has been shown false by history, perhaps the real answer is "no".

Fat Cat wrote:Given that all three of those points has been shown false by history, perhaps the real answer is "no".

Your grasp of the subject matter is as good as Turd's. So Odin's query illicits a positive response on account also of your own pathetic intervention.

That being the case, thrill us with your refutation of the historic record.

Fat Cat wrote:Given that all three of those points has been shown false by history, perhaps the real answer is "no".

Ok. Why did they join?

You tell me.

With the EU and the wider European project, sometimes the only rationale for a lot of the things they've done is ideological.

Once the superstate of Europe was conceived, they just implemented all those things you'd expect to see in a national state: free trade, free movement of people, free movement of services, shared institutions, shared diplomatic policy, common currency etc.....

The fact the Euro currency has failed hasn't appeared to deter them one bit. Instead they're using it as an excuse to implement another strand of their plan, and impose a common fiscal policy on all their members - or at least the ones they can bully and shame into it.

Past a certain point, none of it makes any sense. Which again points to the motivations behind it all being ideological. For me, the real issue is what the actual ideology is? This, however, is where it gets into the realm of conspiracy-theory.....

The architects of the European project simply wanted to bind the members so closely together as to render future intra-European wars unthinkable. Schumann and Monnet started with coal and steel - the primary resources of warfare - as a deliberate statement.

What has happened over subsequent years isan unrealistic acceleration of unity pushed hard by European diplomats, largely based in Brussels. Glimpsing new possibilities seductive to their bureaucratic and ideologic ideals, they raced too far ahead of their own populations. The project has in recent years lacked buy-in from ordinary Europeans.

That is ok when times are good. People remain broadly supportive. But when the shit hits the fan and people lack for jobs, income and economic security, the cracks become fissures. "Golden Dawn", the right wing party in Greece has climbed to 7% of the vote and looks like it's getting stronger. They have huge electiral support from the Greek police. Greece is heading for carnage. Political petrol is lying around. And sparks are flying.

The talk of "conspiracy theories" is dumb in my view. The last few years saw a partial de-coupling of desire from the politicians and Eurocrats on one side and ordinary Europeans on the other. It's not fatal. If the project can be made to work by those in charge.

The mistake the outside world could make is to underestimate the deep-seated political will to see this work. WWII ravaged the Continent within living memory. Yugoslavia shamed it a few short years ago. My view is that behind closed doors, there is a steely resolve to do "whatever it takes". Politicians are united in this even if their populations are more hesitant. The necessary chess and trade for national position clouds this intent but it remains. Greece is being given a choice. If it votes for a party that rejects a bailout with austerity conditions, Europe will see what follows as a controlled explosion which is unfortunate but one that that should demonstrate to everyone that the EU is the only show in town.

IMHO, the currency and financial troubles are not necessarily a reason that the EU will fail or can't work. We had similar troubles in the US during the early years-- a mix of financially strong and weak states; different economic structures; predatory banks fucking over ordinary people; and a banking crisis made worse by a poorly executed populist solution that caused a serious recession.

Gorbachev wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

odin wrote:Can someone explain to a thicko why a group of countries without homogenous economic aims/needs would want to share a currency?

1. More stable than a whole bunch of individual currencies.
2. Less manipulable by George Soros
3. In theory it provides an incentive for historically financially undisciplined countries to get their houses in order (oops)-- and nobody wants to live next door to a nation that's falling apart.

Odin, given Turd's reasonably cogent response, the answer to your question is "yes".

Eh???

Fat Cat wrote:Given that all three of those points has been shown false by history, perhaps the real answer is "no".

I don't think those points have been proven false by history-- we really don't know if Europe would have been better off without the currency union in the current crisis. I think the US example suggests that it is still workable, but the US is a hell of a lot less complicated than Europe.