Well, with the arguments over the fate of the EU moving fast and important decisions to be made in light of the ongoing debate over the future of the EU if it is to be preserved. Government austerity, proposals over more binding fiscal and financial policies across the Eurozone, and more is being proposed to weather the disaster as eyes fall on the troubled economies and those perceived to 'hold up' the Eurozone, like Germany.
I'd rather not talk much here, more interested in letting others debate. Where should the EU go? Why? Should the EU exist at all in the first place?
I think the concept of the EU as it was intended was quite good, it worked to the advantage of many countries (the Euro was a better currency than the Mark, by all accounts, and the Mark was one of the best European currencies before the Euro). Besides, closer cooperation between Europe is necessary in order to keep up with emerging powers like China and India.
But by now I see a risk of politicians getting wound up in sunk costs and the ideal of the EU while losing sight of the risks of corrupt and inefficient governments taking advantage of it. It is merely the hope of being able to avert the crisis as well as the considerable prestige at stake which keeps politicians fighting.
What do you think of this upcoming summit on Friday? Will anything be reached or will it be like the preceding meetings over the matter?
Commissar MercZ;5591448What do you think of this upcoming summit on Friday? Will anything be reached or will it be like the preceding meetings over the matter?
Difficult to say. The long term trend seems to be northern European politicians abandoning their positions for the sake of southern European politician's economies. The big fear is of course that a collapse in the south will tear down everyone else.
However, the credit rating of northern EU countries is now at risk (which in itself is a worrying development as rating agencies now have considerable influence on EU policies). That might give some support to the northern factions.
It is a weird scenario though. Matters of significant importance for the world (a collapse of the EU has the potential of dragging everyone else down as well) are decided by a small number of politicians who try to pacify their voters, amass as much prestige as possible and listen to the conflicting advice of experts.
Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander
26th April 2004
Atleast Finland won't accept the German and French proposition that small countries would lose their veto within the crisis fund. Simply, the constitution won't allow that taxpayers' money is thrown where Germany and France want, and the opposition won't allow a 2/3 majority vote in such a controversial issue.
EU's problem was that they were too proud and acquisitive. They wanted to expand, fast, get Greece for example to Euro even if their economy wasn't in order. They just wanted to make EU greater and greater fast. Now we're getting the results.
They were also too proud to admit that Greece had failed, so we're just putting more money to a sinking ship. Their ideology wouldn't allow kicking Greece out of the Eurozone in the beginning, because that would be a defeat to their ideology.
The financial crisis has just made things worse, indeed Germany and France left others outside of planning the Friday's summit. Not sure if they're doing things for the good or not, but atleast the state of EU decision making has gone to a bad path. I'd say the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon had EU at a good level, but now it has gone somewhat more authoritative.
All it means to me is that it's less of a hassle bothering with money if I visit Europe. I support that aspect continuing if possible.
The EU is a waste of time and energy. its doomed to eventually fail. This silly "Europe as one" idea. I vote UKIP!
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
[INDENT]Where should the EU go? [/INDENT]
Require lenders to publish their loans to governments through the ECB, penalise anyone who lends to a nation that’s already borrowed as much as it’s allowed to.
Because if you can’t enforce the borrowing limitations then countries can run up huge debts compared to the value of the common currency.
There are currently multiple markets for sovereign debt with different attached values operating within a single currency with a single attached value. That means that a lot of bad debt can accumulate relative to the value of the currency in circulation before people notice and when they do the currency starts to devalue quite rapidly. Effectively splintering the debt market makes the currency’s value structurally unstable.
You can regulate borrowing on the borrower’s end or the lender’s end. There’s not a whole lot you can do to a nation. If they lie to you or run up huge debts what are you going to do? Charge them more and create more debt? You can do a lot to lenders though. [INDENT]Should the EU exist at all in the first place?[/INDENT]
Yes. Increased mobility of goods, services and jobs has to be matched by an increased mobility of workers and currency; otherwise structural unemployment sky-rockets. Ideally we should be looking to get a single European language and better integrated labour laws too.
Like as not though nothing will really be done. They'll probably push for limiting the percentage of GDP you can run up as debt and try to charge you for going over or something ridiculous like that. -shrug- No real point in having regs if you don't enforce them.
17th June 2002
The EU as it stands needs to fail, otherwise there's no impetus from anybody to build a new one that is fairer, more democratic, and ultimately, more stable. It'll be messy for everybody, but in the long run it'll be better. Somebody will try again, and hopefully look at the various mistakes made this time around and try to avoid making them.
The Eurozone problems currently ongoing were inevitable, really. As somebody above pointed out, the EU has been trying to expand too far, too quickly. Trying to bind so many disparate economies together into one, less flexible, currency, for example, was doomed to failure. Work needs to be undertaken to bring the various economies of Europe closer to parity, and that won't work while the Euro exists.
Looking at the news that came out of this summit, it seems that France and Germany were able to get the agreement of 17 EU members with respects to a tighter fiscal union and greater regulation over member states' budget deficits and what not. The notable event that caused waves in the media though appears to be the UK's veto of the agreement and refusal to take part in it. In a way though I wasn't surprised by Britain's rejection of the agreement.
It would be interesting to see how the EU moves on this agreement among the nations who made the agreement and where the UK lies within it now.