"The EU's old, outdated ideas have been rejected at the ballot box in exchange for a new approach and fresh thinking.
The result is a tired, stumbling European Union that is dying on its feet before our very eyes. Credibility for the project is fading fast as citizens right across Europe awaken to the reality of its authoritarian instincts that seek to run roughshod over public opinion."
??? ??? ???
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11720081/Greece-votes-No-The-European-Union-is-dying-before-our-eyes.html
I'm not a Euro, but I think there was no good vote for the Greeks. As I understand it, a yes vote meant crippling austerity but a no vote means an inevitable exit from the euro zone and though they will then be able print drachmas to their heart's content, the drachmas would be virtually worthless for buying foreign goods. So no matter how you cut it, the Greeks are in for austerity and the EU is probably stronger without them.
That fact highlights the weakness of the EU. Historically, the US would be a lot stronger without much of the Deep South. Right now possibly stronger without Michigan, though many parts of MI are doing really well. But in general there are massive "donor" states like California, Texas and New York who run at a "profit" and massive recipient states (mostly Republican and southern by the way). But we don't talk about the dissolution of the union because some state isn't meeting it's fiscal targets.
Two observations
- this is really sad for the Greeks.
- Based on the last available numbers which are, granted, rather old at this point, Greece is the second worst country in the world in terms of debt/income ratio. The US is #3
The US is #11 in terms of debt/gdp, but in terms of debt/revenue from taxes (i.e. actual ability to pay bills)
QuoteJapan is still #1, with a debt as a percentage of tax revenue of about 900 percent and Greece is still in second place at about 475 percent. The big change is the U.S. jumps up to third place, with a debt to income measure of 408 percent. To add a bit more perspective, the countries in fourth, fifth, and sixth place are Iceland, Portugal, and Italy, all between 300 and 310 percent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/07/12/forget-debt-as-a-percent-of-gdp-its-really-much-worse/
So let's all talk about how the Greeks lived beyond their means, thought they were rich when they were poor, did not manage expenses versus revenue. Let's all talk about how they got what was coming. And let's all just hope we're not in Japan, the US, Iceland, Portugal or Italy.
Also not a Euro.
1. It is very sad for the Greeks.
2. UK and Denmark were very wise not to join the Euro common currency. Unlike a national currency which are generally backed by the full faith and credit of a nation state, the Euro is backed by only ledger sheets, Bank Gnomes and the promises of politicians.
3. The EU needs to decide if it really wants to be a free trade zone or a United States of Europe.
4. I wish all of them good luck though.
"UK and Denmark were very wise not to join the Euro common currency."
Agree
The vast difference between Europe and the conglomeration of States, known as the US, that the EU was trying to replicate; are two core factors.
Common currency and common language. It could be argued there is a 3rd of common culture, but anyone who has travelled throughout the US will note the differences the further you travel.
The common currency was step one for the EU towards the United States of Europe, but the culture and language differences meant it would never work. A large part of that is due to the historical normalities of PIG states* to deal in cash and rarely pay tax on income.
As such, it was doomed to fail. However, I do echo ergophobe's points. There was no good outcome for Greece, but this way they have the feeling of control, if not the true power of it.
Europe is dead, long live Europe....
*Portugal Ireland/Italy Greece Spain.
And Thomas Piketty weighs in with the observation that Germany is the one country in Europe that has NEVER repaid its debts and the German Economic Miracle was as much as anything the product of the 1953 London accords to forgive German debt.
http://www.zeit.de/2015/26/thomas-piketty-schulden-griechenland/komplettansicht (I'm sure y'all know how to use Google Translate)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Agreement_on_German_External_Debts - note that listed among the creditor nations who forgave German debt was.... Greece
Quote from: JasonD on July 06, 2015, 03:57:44 PM
Common currency and common language. It could be argued there is a 3rd of common culture, but anyone who has travelled throughout the US will note the differences the further you travel.
And yet, Switzerland. Common currency, but three languages. Geneva has been part of Switzerland for a shorter time than my home state, Vermont, has been part of the US. But no matter how much Geneva screws up its finances, I just don't see Basel and Zurich wanting to kick Geneva out of the Federation. Both the US and Switzerland have very strong senses of national identity, regardless of how federal they may or may not be. The truly charged rivalries and hatreds between states/cantons is mostly reserved for sports contests.
It's interesting that of all the nations of Europe who refused to be an EU member state at all, it was the one that was already a currency union between regions of different language and history. And that decision was largely the result of "backwards farmers" who voted against the urban elites, who almost universally thought the vote spelled an end to Swiss prosperity.
> .ch : 3 languages.
Yet Germanic in all of the culture, at least when it comes to business (at least in my, admittedly limited, dealings there) . I think that massively trumps the language issues :)
Quote from: JasonD on July 06, 2015, 04:44:12 PM
Yet Germanic in all of the culture
I know Swiss people who would shoot you for that. But afterwards they'd feel guilty and say "Maybe that guy was right."
Anyway, that was my point - I think it's a sense of shared cultural identity that makes the Swiss and US unions work, not language or currency.
One of the more thought-provoking things I've read so far
http://www.businessinsider.com/greece-referendum-result-and-the-meaning-of-debt-2015-7
QuoteI know Swiss people who would shoot you for that. But afterwards they'd feel guilty and say "Maybe that guy was right."
Anyway, that was my point - I think it's a sense of shared cultural identity that makes the Swiss and US unions work, not language or currency.
And I think your points and examples have turned me. I now agree, especially so, if you include language being a subset (or at least related to) culture...
"Now, as Greece's unsustainable situation becomes clear, and as others -- Spain and Portugal, for example -- the Euro itself is under challenge. That is not surprising, given the Euro's peculiar status as a currency without a government."
John Bolton former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Spain should be OK, they've raised their GDP forecast to 3.3%. The UK gave Ireland a large loan a few years back. Greece seems like the only casualty just now...
Quote from: JasonD on July 06, 2015, 04:59:28 PM
if you include language being a subset (or at least related to) culture...
Sure. And that can get thorny in many parts of the US. And you certainly see how fundamental language is in, say, the Irish, Breton and Basque situations. That, by the way, is what has always made me sceptical of the whole EU project.
For decades the French imposed draconian measure to suppress Breton culture, but that is no longer considered acceptable. It doesn't seem that the Bretons have enough cultural momentum to move for independence, so the French seem to have won, but if there were a Breton revival, I could see that change and evolve to a situation more like Scotland.
All of which (Scotland, Brittany, Basque) make the Swiss situation so much more instructive.
Bilingual countries are inherently politically unstable. Which makes a United States of Europe almost impossible.
Quote from: ergophobe on July 06, 2015, 02:52:46 PMSo let's all talk about how the Greeks lived beyond their means, thought they were rich when they were poor, did not manage expenses versus revenue. Let's all talk about how they got what was coming. And let's all just hope we're not in Japan, the US, Iceland, Portugal or Italy.
Argh. I resemble that comment. Didn't realize it was that bad in Japan.
>> lived beyond their means
don't think any country is immune from that? I don't think the UK should be name calling anytime soon, for sure.
Quote from: Mackin USA on July 06, 2015, 01:53:05 PM
"The EU's old, outdated ideas have been rejected at the ballot box in exchange for a new approach and fresh thinking.
The result is a tired, stumbling European Union that is dying on its feet before our very eyes. Credibility for the project is fading fast as citizens right across Europe awaken to the reality of its authoritarian instincts that seek to run roughshod over public opinion."
??? ??? ???
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11720081/Greece-votes-No-The-European-Union-is-dying-before-our-eyes.html
I've not yet read the article or the majority of this thread, but was surprised by the strength of that quote - even for the Telegraph, which is firmly right of centre - so went to check who had written it and saw...
QuoteBy Nigel Farage
A name all Brits will be more than familiar with. Leader of the single issue party, UKIP, who campaign to get Britain out of Europe, and general figure of fun/hate/ridicule
I'm not terribly worried, however too many Grexits and the European Union is under pressure. Greece has been neglecting their economy for way too long and has been run by an bunch of douchebags imho. You get what you wish for I guess and I'm pretty sure all the other Euro countries are pretty fed up paying for yet another country run by idiots.
>UK and Denmark were very wise not to join the Euro common currency.
Well, the Danish Krone was under heavy pressure recently but we held up. Personally I dont give a damn about the currency - it'd be Euro or Kroner. It's all more or less digital.
Perhaps the biggest drop-dead date is July 20. That's the day Greece must pay 3.5 billion euros on a bond held by the European Central Bank. If it doesn't pay, the ECB could withdraw all the emergency credit, collapsing Greece's banking system.
Many analysts think that would result in Greece leaving the euro.
If the government defaults to the ECB itself, the thinking goes, it would be impossible to deny the government is bankrupt. And that could extend to the banks that are tied to it.
[Yahoo! Finance]
PS: Greece has been neglecting their economy for way too long and has been run by an bunch of douchebags imho. ;D YUP
Quote from: Brad on July 07, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Bilingual countries are inherently politically unstable. Which makes a United States of Europe almost impossible.
Based on what examples?
In much of Europe, the whole idea of linguistic unity is a culturally constructed tradition that reinterprets history backwards. Most European nation states achieved linguistic uniformity only recently and through often draconian means. The British were experts at this, not only at home but also in colonies, which is my Canadian relatives of my father's generation are so resentful about the whole language issue.
The idea that linguistic unity is fundamental to national identity is an idea that was crafted and invented mostly over the last four centuries. And while it now appears to us to be basic to the nature of things, there is no fundamental law of nations that requires that be true.
Let's see, historically we have
- France: truly a multilingual nation until the late 19th century. As of 1800, only 15 of France's 85 departments were majority French speaking. In the 1870s, someone from Paris still couldn't travel to Toulon and understand the conversation in the street. In the 1930s, the central government had to force school teachers to enact corporal punishment against non-French speaking kids in an effort to stamp out local languages. Historian Mona Ozouf recounts how her father, also her teacher, would beat her at school for speaking Breton and beat her at home for speaking French. Check out Eugen Weber, Peasants into Frenchman, for an interesting read on this.
- Britain: I'm not sure when it ceased to be truly multilingual, but certainly the opposition to the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer was based largely on the fact that large numbers of Englishmen didn't speak English at the time
And in present-day Europe
- Belgium... has been bilingual for as long as its been a country, except of course for when it was trilingual and had a Spanish king.
- Switzerland - possibly the most stable country in Europe lo these last 500 years and it's an understatement say it's quad-lingual because really the various forms of Swiss German are perhaps more than dialects (I'm not a linguist, but I know from one end of CH to the other, people can't necessarily converse in their native tongue).
- Ireland - OK, you may have a point there, but the language is a focal point for other tensions, not a source. It's a convenient differentiator. It's a history of oppression at issue there and it would be true regardless of what language the oppressed spoke. Focusing on language in that case is like focusing on skin color in the US.
- Canada - mmm on the surface you have a point, but after a bit of touchiness for a decade or two, they seem to have sorted that out and we don't hear a lot from the Separatistes anymore (and while my father's generation were hot about the issue, my cousins my age not so much)
- The United States - not officially bilingual, of course, but we will probably soon have more native Spanish speakers than Spain (currently about 38 million in the US, if you subtract Basque and Catalan speakers from Spains 47 million, we can't be far off). Tension, yes, but not instability.
- China - OK, there's been some instability there this century, but seen as a whole, a remarkably stable society compared to Europe. In addition to the two languages we think of (Mandarin and Cantonese), there are many other regional languages. Granted, they have the advantage of a common written language, so perhaps it's a special case.
- India - a feast of languages. Every damn state has it's own official language and huge swaths of the country don't speak Hindi. You could argue that India is not a stable country of course and maybe it isn't, but I don't see language driving division in India. Again, it's religion, culture, history. Language is the least of it.
I'm probably missing something obvious, but there is nothing inherent in preventing multilingual geographic units from forming successful federations as far as I can see.
On of the first lessons I learned in those Poli-Sci courses in international relations. Language often indicates other differences: religion, culture, wealth that can make the divides deeper.
One language has to dominate. Remember the modern nation state is not that old as you point out in your examples, but it is the most stable political unit we have yet found.
We, in PoliSci, used to hold up Belgium as an exception to the rule but look what happened recently, as soon as all external threats from bigger Powers or neighbors vanished Belgium started to fracture politically along the language divide. The Walloons and the Flemish could stick together as long as bigger tribes (and or the USSR) was trying to push them around but absent that and they fracture.
Why did the French pretty much stamp out the Bretton language? For exactly the reasons I describe.
Why did America put so much effort into the melting pot rather than multiculturalism?
Why are all the African states so messed up?
I would not call India exactly stable, but it may be that they are so fractured that no one group is totally dominant. Remember the British gave India: an non-political bureaucracy, a professional military, democracy, red tape and the English language all of which lend themselves to stability.
Forget industrialization and technology, respectfully, Europe is just a big bunch of tribes (like all the rest of the world) and people seem to get more tribal if there is an "Us vs. Them" Non-Pluralistic schism like a language divide sitting like an elephant in the room.
>Belgium
Hasn't it been dysfunctional as a 'unified' country for decades now? From what I've read over the years, it's not even able to pull itself together long enough to formally split.
[Hope this isn't trying everyone's patience as this has gotten to be a pretty abstract take on the topic, but of course it shouldn't be that painful to drag the scrollbar if you're not interested....]
[Brad - I'm just shooting the shit here... I like debate. I figure you would not have posted such long considered responses if you didn't too. I hope this isn't too over the top]
Sorry, but I just don't buy that linguistic diversity is an inherent flaw in the European Union that cannot be overcome.
All diversity is destabilizing to some extent, though as we know from biology, it is also a reservoir of variation that allows for adaptation. Linguistic division, especially as an indicator of cultural division, is one of those destabilizing factors. However, it is one factor among a vast number.
The way you're looking at the historical record, both the successful and failed states prove you right.
- If a state is linguistically diverse and splits, that's proof that linguistically diverse unions are doomed to fail.
- If a state is linguistically diverse and manages to survive so long that the dominant language extinguishes all others, then that is proof that linguistic diversity was a source of instability that needed be stamped out in order for the state to survive as a cohesive unit. But it ignores the survival of the state itself.
- And then every other example (Canada, Switzerland, India, China), all seem to be "exceptions that prove the rule."
It essentially means that your hypothesis is not falsifiable. To a historian, this could be construed as a form of Whig History, an interpretation that sees things through the lens of an inexorable march toward the modern constitutional state as we know it. Whether truly Whig or not, it strikes me as strongly presentist, having a bias of working backwards from the present.
In fact, what we see overwhelmingly in modern Europe are stable nation states that started out as linguistically diverse that have now evolved into such stable and linguistically unified states that we forget the original diversity. Most Frenchmen have no idea how diverse their country was just 150 years ago.
I see no inherent reason that the EU couldn't follow the same trajectory and certainly see no reason why the decreasing linguistic diversity of these states is proof that linguistic diversity is an insurmountable obstacle to long-term union.
Let's go back to France. The crown and later governments used all means available to extend the power of the central government. One of those means was indeed a sort of linguistic imperialism, which in your reading is proof that linguistic diversity within the state has some special status as a divisive force that needs to be stamped out.
However, France survived, which is the salient point. Perhaps equally germane is that though the crown and later republics attempted to achieve linguistic union, they also did the same in many other realms: law, currency, weights and measures, education, military (conscription being a major unifier) and many other domains. I don't see any reason to give language a special status in that list.
Perhaps more important, that list of differences is not that unlike the list of differences in the EU. You can add to it differences in cuisine and folk traditions.
If I look at the history of France, the only form of diversity that ever threatened to break France apart from within was religious diversity among people who otherwise shared a language and culture.
That doesn't strike me as in any way unique. In past times, it was perfectly reasonable to have states with many languages and weights and measures and marriage customs, but the idea that a state could have two religions and survive was difficult to ponder.
All that to say that I just don't buy the argument that linguistic diversity has some special uber-powerful destabilizing influence that makes it impossible for the EU to survive.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think the EU will survive, but I just don't buy that its ultimate failure was written in stone from the outset simply because it encompasses different languages. That is simply not the precedent in Europe.
What a bloody great response ;)
Don't forget to pay attention to the China markets today, which melted down... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-08/china-trade-halts-hit-2-2-trillion-as-state-intervention-fails
Bill is RIGHT ON
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/11725236/The-really-worrying-financial-crisis-is-happening-in-China-not-Greece.html
I'm not so sure those countries are exceptions:
China - this is more the remains of an imperial state model than a nation state model. Roughly, the Communists inherited/conquered the remnants of a very ancient empire and basically just continued it with a new coat of Communist paint. (Ditto USSR.)
Canada - let us not forget that in the late 1960's or early 70's (I forget) Canada deployed troops in its cities in response to bombings by a Quebec independence group. To this day there is tremendous resentment in large parts of English speaking Canada about all the concessions given to Quebec. Rather than being an exception, I'd say Canada ain't done with this issue yet.
Switzerland - The language groups came together long ago in order to defend against more powerful neighbors. The threat might be more economic today than military but they stick together because none of the sub regions could survive alone. Democracy helps, confederation rather than too strong a central government helps.
India - I would apply the same model as China: it is more of an inherited empire than anything. It might evolve into a nation state or not. but they are doing their thing and the story isn't done yet.
Back to Europe:
I think the elites are way to far ahead of the people on European unification. Big change is generational and also emotional, if you don't have the hearts and minds of the masses with you then political legitimacy vaporizes.
May 25, 2014
Flemish separatists are big winners in Belgian election
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/25/us-belgium-election-idUSBREA4O0DT20140525
>uber-powerful
Not sure I would call it that. It is a rift in the society. Rifts can be overcome either by common need and the genuine willingness to make pragmatic compromises (eg. Belgium up until recently) or by melding those rifts together somehow (eg. the Saxons and the Normans eventually united linguistically by pottering around long enough until it just evolved.) Bilingual countries can exist, but for how long and will they fracture again on language lines?
>Europe
Look the Bavarians still don't totally trust the Northern Germans (Prussians if you will). The Scots don't totally trust the English. Northern Europeans think Southern Europeans are slackers, while Southern Europeans think Northerners are dour, starch their undershorts and just don't know how to party. Eastern Europeans dont trust the Western Europeans to defend them and the Easterners would love to have several mountain ranges between them and the Russians. Thats just all mostly historical baggage. Throw in religion, culture, language, corruption, etc. and you have a lot of reasons for instablitity.
Prediction: if the EU tries to outlaw serving beer in Imperial Pints in British pubs again, there will be war. :-)
>Belgium
The rift in Belgium surprised me as I had thought the issues to be long settled. Obviously a lot of dissatisfaction has been brewing for a very long time.
>Belgium
I think that multi-languages keep 1st World countries in a perptually 'stressed' state, often subdued, but there. Not quite unstable enough to fly apart, but not cohesive, either. I also think that 1st World separatists take a more measured view of the negatives and are opportunistic rather than fervent.
>culture and language differences meant it would never work.
Lots of deep thought in this thread, but it seems to me that the main problem with the Euro is that it is a common currency without a common government.
>common currency without a common government
I agree, littleman. That is the core problem.
>common currency without a common government
there is a common government, but not every nation likes it. It sits in Brussels and has voted for representatives from every nation.
The French and German's love it. The newer Eastern European countries accept it more than the older member countries and overall it's despised at grass roots citizen level just as much as the freedom's it's given (and there are many to applaud) are loved.
>Northern Europeans think Southern Europeans are slackers
That's the underlying truth (they are) that will pull it all apart.
Brad - I think my comments have run dry, but I do have to point out you keep naysaying and pointing at the problem with China, with India, with Bavarians distrusting Prussians, etc, and yet every one of those examples concerns a country that is still a union.
Sorry, but the convincing cases for me are going to be places like Ireland and the Soviet Union where there actual was a breakup, and then looking at the EU and seeing if the factors that caused actual breakups that have actually happened apply to the EU.
QuoteI think the elites are way to far ahead of the people on European unification.
Now that I think is a problem with the EU. Switzerland was the country where the elites failed to convince the people altogether. In the other countries, the votes passed, but it is questionable there was ever much buy in.
That is a difference between all the successful cases I mention - in those case the regular people mostly didn't care all that much.
Don't get me wrong - making the EU last for its first 100 years will be a major challenge (and I would only start counting from the Schengen Agreement of 1995). I think it's highly unlikely that it will survive, but not because of any single factor.
I think it will be torn apart for the same reason that most things are torn apart: because there are a million factors that are all one in a million, and so eventually one of them comes to pass. Nothing lasts forever, the question is how long will it last.
ergophobe - Please note, I just said bilingual states were inherently unstable, that does not mean they cannot exist, it is just not an argument in their favor, especially long term.
Anyway, it's been fun talking about it, so thanks everyone for putting up with my long posts.
Quote from: nffc on July 08, 2015, 10:13:51 PM
>Northern Europeans think Southern Europeans are slackers
That's the underlying truth (they are) that will pull it all apart.
SO TRUE
[ADDED]
"The euro is unraveling because commitments upon which its ultimate success depended—commitments that had to be credible if it was to work as intended—have instead proven to be perfectly or almost perfectly incredible. The euro, in other words, was built upon a set of promises that the authorities concerned were unable to keep."
http://www.alt-m.org/2015/07/02/alt-m-redux-incredible-commitments-euro-destroying-europe/
The 3% deficit to GNP ratio was also broken by the UK in style, after bailing out a number of UK private banks.
Nice rule in theory.
Quote from: Brad on July 09, 2015, 11:37:37 AM
Anyway, it's been fun talking about it, so thanks everyone for putting up with my long posts.
Ditto... Definitely made me stretch my brain. I try to avoid that because I don't like it to get sore. But every once in a while it's worth the trouble.
Just so we don't think it is over:
"Contrary to received wisdom, Greece may be better off out of the Euro. Left to their own devices, including the need to finance sovereign debt, the Greek people and their political leaders might be forced to make the needed economic reforms and to implement fiscal discipline. The good outcome is not guaranteed, but Grexit from the Euro may be the only feasible way of achieving it."
The Cato Institute
I know that Iceland is a MUCH smaller economy than Greece, but defaulting seemed to be their best option. The problem with austerity is that it seems to hit the common people very badly while it is the elite who benefit most from the fiscal irresponsibility.
That's the essence of the Business Insider article I linked above. The troika bailed out private investors and then imposed austerity. So rather than letting the risk that is supposed to be inherent in lending in a free economy fall on those who knowingly and voluntarily took that risk (Goldman Sachs was a big holder of Greek debt apparently), they chose to let it fall on the people of Greece.
The European union is flawed because it is more of a dictatorship than an elected Government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission scroll to transparency.
They have not produced audited accounts for years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11209248/EU-auditors-refuse-to-sign-off-more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html
They fudged the acceptance of Greece in the first place.
imho people are tribal, and it is harnessing that for the good of all and not the destruction off all that is key. And I do think that was the goal of the Union. I just think the ideal has gone south, and the cental govt has got to powerful.
Good luck to Greece, its going to be tough.
Remember the Irish took a 20% drop in all govt pay, and we hardly heard a whisper of it in the UK. It would be strikes here if that happened.
"Remember the Irish took a 20% drop in all govt pay, and we hardly heard a whisper of it in the UK. It would be strikes here if that happened."
In the US there would be more than strikes BUT we sure do need to shrink the size of the government.
The new VAT is going to be 23%, ouch.
Worries about the global economy, prompted by a slowdown in China where shares slid more than 8 percent on Monday , are weighing on many countries in Europe.
Manufacturing confidence in the Netherlands, with huge exposure to international trade though several of Europe's largest ports, slipped back in July, reflecting pessimism among companies over the prospects for the coming three months.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/imf-paints-dim-picture-europe-151453069.html
I'm thinking back to my old high school history classes, but one of the causes of the Great Depression was war debt from World War I and reparations. And that Europe and America were just passing around the same money for war debt without using it for growing the economy - or something. It seems to me that Europe is falling into the same trap.