Why is European Union Fundamentally doomed...

[leen93]

1.
The European Union is no United States. It's a Union of different countries without trade barriers, free movement of people... Every country has it's own laws...

[youngmike]

Every country has it's own laws...

You are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)

[blablahblah]

European Union was never based on something different than money, unlike the US were. We don't share a culture, or beliefs, or something that makes us stand united. We place our union on economy, and we oblige every country to be as the central bank wants them to be, thus the Stability and Growth Pact.

It's very much a cultural union. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand, or is disrespectful of, the cultural similarities between the member countries.

Take for instance, alcohol tax. It would not be possible if the various countries did not all have pretty similar policies, based on similar beliefs that drinking alcohol has some social costs, and that those costs should be accounted for. It's actually pretty sensible and I challenge Libertarians to describe a VIABLE free market alternative where things like property damage, violence, and health problems from alcohol are all paid privately. Let me guess, drunks will be put in private prisons, where they will work until they pay off their debt to someone's private police/insurer?

VAT is another common feature. Most taxes can be considered unfair when taken in isolation because they always target some specific group, while other groups don't have to pay anything. VAT is pretty broad-sweeping and discouraging excessive consumerism isn't such a bad idea. All that stuff about protecting the environment, raising health and education standards, has its roots in cultural values. Money is just the 'oil' for the machine.

Having a formal "union" is an acknowledgement that the various countries are better off cooperating together, rather than putting up artificial borders. The size and economy of scale gives the EU member countries much better negotiating power when trading with other large countries such as the US, Russia, or China.

People like the zerohedge crowd have been 'predicting' the EU's demise for years. And now the Russians are openly joining in. Feeling threatened much? Sounds bullish.

[picolo]

Every country has it's own laws...

You are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)

Every country has its own laws but there are laws imposed by the EU too according to the treaties that countries signed.

[ObscureBean]

Throw a 1000 years into the mix and at the end you'll have a believable union of the European countries. It'll take that long if not longer for the whole to assimilate its parts, the ingrained identities of the individual countries. A thousand years ago, it would not have taken that long because a thousand years ago, there were no video/sound recordings, images, internet etc to constantly remind people of their origins, traditions/culture. 

I kind of feel like it's the exact opposite to what you described here. A thousand years ago it must have been fairly easy to use people's lack of knowledge about the "others" to further a sense of national identity and a sense of isolation, us against the world, that pretty much allowed rulers to enact whatever policies they chose to pursue, usually to the detriment of the majority of the population. Nowadays, that is much harder to achieve (though it still happens frequently enough) - but, in my view, harder to achieve not so much because people aren't aware of their origins/traditions/culture, but rather because they increasingly realize that that doesn't really matter; that whatever the differences, "we're all in the same boat".

You are absolutely correct. This, right here, is the paradox that will ultimately either destroy humanity or mold it into something new entirely. The 'world' is pushing for complete unification of its parts, this has been the case since the beginning. The concept/idea of unification is certainly very appealing on some level, it brings about consolidation, strengthens the sense of belonging, increases efficiency, amplifies the cozy "we're all in the same boat" feeling that helps keep people docile, etc. However the employed method is flawed. The 'world' is working toward its goal the only way it knows how, using power. The problem is that power is uncompromisingly double-edged, for every hundred that it rallies to the cause, 100 more is alienated. And neither of the 2 groups formed are 100% pure, they carry within them the divided feelings imparted to them by the whole. You'll never find a human with 100% allegiance to something, while this is not an issue in itself, you have to remember that the world is forcibly dragging all of its parts along a very specific path. The more well-defined the world gets, the stronger the bind it exerts on its parts. This results in internal pressure that only builds up as the world moves forward. Two possibilities: 1) the world achieves complete unification (100%) - this happens when its binding strength transcends free will and becomes irrevocable. 2) the world self-destructs - this happens when internal pressure reaches unsustainable levels.
It's not all gloomy though, as long as you have free will, you can still change  (assuming of course that you don't fall prey to the proverbial ego along the way  )

[exoton]

1. In Europe the only place where you will not be treated as a foreigner is where both of your parents (and grand parents) are born. Meaning that a German will always be a foreigner in Spain (not even speaking about language difficulties).

2. Most cities and towns are not car ready (16 lanes both side inside downtown)

3. Culturally and socially wipeout by WW1 and 2 and others groups (those pressuring to destroy the concept of family and community to replace it with national or European identity).

enough?

Some young Europeans feel european and the European institutions will do whatever it takes to save it (themselves?) so it has a chance of surviving or maybe it will be cut in 2 or 3 with one or two countries totally leaving the union.

At this point the Euro will likely fail in the event that even one country stops using the Euro (even if they end up staying in the EU). This may or may not make the EU fail, however the EU was created to be an economic union where people can trade (and travel) freely within the union and this will be much more difficult without a common currency

[picolo]

1. In Europe the only place where you will not be treated as a foreigner is where both of your parents (and grand parents) are born. Meaning that a German will always be a foreigner in Spain (not even speaking about language difficulties).

2. Most cities and towns are not car ready (16 lanes both side inside downtown)

3. Culturally and socially wipeout by WW1 and 2 and others groups (those pressuring to destroy the concept of family and community to replace it with national or European identity).

enough?

Some young Europeans feel european and the European institutions will do whatever it takes to save it (themselves?) so it has a chance of surviving or maybe it will be cut in 2 or 3 with one or two countries totally leaving the union.

At this point the Euro will likely fail in the event that even one country stops using the Euro (even if they end up staying in the EU). This may or may not make the EU fail, however the EU was created to be an economic union where people can trade (and travel) freely within the union and this will be much more difficult without a common currency

You can have free trade and travel without a currency. If some countries go out of the Union, they could create their own currency are and there could be two different Euros. The ECB will likely inflate the Euro to save it. Buy Bitcoin and Gold

[exoton]

1. In Europe the only place where you will not be treated as a foreigner is where both of your parents (and grand parents) are born. Meaning that a German will always be a foreigner in Spain (not even speaking about language difficulties).

2. Most cities and towns are not car ready (16 lanes both side inside downtown)

3. Culturally and socially wipeout by WW1 and 2 and others groups (those pressuring to destroy the concept of family and community to replace it with national or European identity).

enough?

Some young Europeans feel european and the European institutions will do whatever it takes to save it (themselves?) so it has a chance of surviving or maybe it will be cut in 2 or 3 with one or two countries totally leaving the union.

At this point the Euro will likely fail in the event that even one country stops using the Euro (even if they end up staying in the EU). This may or may not make the EU fail, however the EU was created to be an economic union where people can trade (and travel) freely within the union and this will be much more difficult without a common currency

You can have free trade and travel without a currency. If some countries go out of the Union, they could create their own currency are and there could be two different Euros. The ECB will likely inflate the Euro to save it. Buy Bitcoin and Gold

You can have free trade without a common currency (the US has signed several free trade agreements with many other countries) however a common currency makes it much easier to trade from country to country as you do not need to deal with the currency conversion process.

I would say that if two or three countries were to abandon the euro, they would probably go back to their respective national currencies, not form their own new currency

[u9y42]

You are absolutely correct. This, right here, is the paradox that will ultimately either destroy humanity or mold it into something new entirely. The 'world' is pushing for complete unification of its parts, this has been the case since the beginning. The concept/idea of unification is certainly very appealing on some level, it brings about consolidation, strengthens the sense of belonging, increases efficiency, amplifies the cozy "we're all in the same boat" feeling that helps keep people docile, etc. However the employed method is flawed. The 'world' is working toward its goal the only way it knows how, using power. The problem is that power is uncompromisingly double-edged, for every hundred that it rallies to the cause, 100 more is alienated. And neither of the 2 groups formed are 100% pure, they carry within them the divided feelings imparted to them by the whole. You'll never find a human with 100% allegiance to something, while this is not an issue in itself, you have to remember that the world is forcibly dragging all of its parts along a very specific path. The more well-defined the world gets, the stronger the bind it exerts on its parts. This results in internal pressure that only builds up as the world moves forward. Two possibilities: 1) the world achieves complete unification (100%) - this happens when its binding strength transcends free will and becomes irrevocable. 2) the world self-destructs - this happens when internal pressure reaches unsustainable levels.
It's not all gloomy though, as long as you have free will, you can still change  (assuming of course that you don't fall prey to the proverbial ego along the way  )

It's true that many of the internal and external policies being followed are based on power, on imposing "our" will on others, which as you say, divides as much (or even more) than it unites. But these aren't laws of nature, or the only way in which the world, and human society, knows how to work - again, this seems to me to be the path consciously chosen by those in power (in the several forms it manifests), which also happen to be those that typically profit the most from said policies. Of course, the population at large can be manipulated to support these efforts; but I don't believe it reflects most people's wants, or needs, or even a belief in force as being the only path available to enact change in the world. Now, that isn't to say society isn't to blame, to some extent, by accepting and going along with these policies, but that goes to my previous point: that is changing, and more quickly the more connected and aware we all are.


On a more general note, I found the following episode of Head to Head with Viviane Reding, the former vice president of the European Commission, to be quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liLeHHFwDM8 ("Head to Head - Europe: Is the Union over?", 47m29s). It covers several issues, like the democratic deficit and austerity in Europe, though not to as great a depth as I would like. And, even if I disagree with a lot of what Viviane Reding said, I still admire her going through with it - especially knowing how hard hitting the questions in this program usually are.

[ObscureBean]

You are absolutely correct. This, right here, is the paradox that will ultimately either destroy humanity or mold it into something new entirely. The 'world' is pushing for complete unification of its parts, this has been the case since the beginning. The concept/idea of unification is certainly very appealing on some level, it brings about consolidation, strengthens the sense of belonging, increases efficiency, amplifies the cozy "we're all in the same boat" feeling that helps keep people docile, etc. However the employed method is flawed. The 'world' is working toward its goal the only way it knows how, using power. The problem is that power is uncompromisingly double-edged, for every hundred that it rallies to the cause, 100 more is alienated. And neither of the 2 groups formed are 100% pure, they carry within them the divided feelings imparted to them by the whole. You'll never find a human with 100% allegiance to something, while this is not an issue in itself, you have to remember that the world is forcibly dragging all of its parts along a very specific path. The more well-defined the world gets, the stronger the bind it exerts on its parts. This results in internal pressure that only builds up as the world moves forward. Two possibilities: 1) the world achieves complete unification (100%) - this happens when its binding strength transcends free will and becomes irrevocable. 2) the world self-destructs - this happens when internal pressure reaches unsustainable levels.
It's not all gloomy though, as long as you have free will, you can still change  (assuming of course that you don't fall prey to the proverbial ego along the way  )

It's true that many of the internal and external policies being followed are based on power, on imposing "our" will on others, which as you say, divides as much (or even more) than it unites. But these aren't laws of nature, or the only way in which the world, and human society, knows how to work - again, this seems to me to be the path consciously chosen by those in power (in the several forms it manifests), which also happen to be those that typically profit the most from said policies. Of course, the population at large can be manipulated to support these efforts; but I don't believe it reflects most people's wants, or needs, or even a belief in force as being the only path available to enact change in the world. Now, that isn't to say society isn't to blame, to some extent, by accepting and going along with these policies, but that goes to my previous point: that is changing, and more quickly the more connected and aware we all are.


On a more general note, I found the following episode of Head to Head with Viviane Reding, the former vice president of the European Commission, to be quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liLeHHFwDM8 ("Head to Head - Europe: Is the Union over?", 47m29s). It covers several issues, like the democratic deficit and austerity in Europe, though not to as great a depth as I would like. And, even if I disagree with a lot of what Viviane Reding said, I still admire her going through with it - especially knowing how hard hitting the questions in this program usually are.

Delegating responsibility (to the 'ones at the top') has always been the primary means of mitigating guilt. It does not come as a surprise that your argument strongly supports possibility number one. Unfortunately it is impossible for me to further elaborate on my comment without challenging your fundamental understanding of the world. Proceeding past this point on an intellectual level will only lead to a dead end, it is unavoidable. From here you have to come to your own conclusions. Good luck!

[u9y42]

Delegating responsibility (to the 'ones at the top') has always been the primary means of mitigating guilt. It does not come as a surprise that your argument strongly supports possibility number one.

I'm under no illusion that there is no systemic component to the problem - that is to say, replace the "one at the top" with someone else, and you'll often still get the same outcome. But that doesn't invalidate anything I said so far: these policies are still not laws of nature; and they, and indeed society, have been changing as awareness increases. To give obvious examples: slavery and racism are no longer viewed as being acceptable; women can vote; popular participation in policy decisions is increasing; etc.. So, I fail to see how, in your view, my argument supports the idea that this will lead to an overcoming of individual free will through force (I imagine you mean, forming the equivalent of a totalitarian state) - that is, unless your idea of free will is doing any and everything you want, without having to deal with the consequences (like jumping out of a cliff and not having to fall).

Unfortunately it is impossible for me to further elaborate on my comment without challenging your fundamental understanding of the world. Proceeding past this point on an intellectual level will only lead to a dead end, it is unavoidable. From here you have to come to your own conclusions. Good luck!

That seems like a cop-out. Feel free to challenge my fundamental understanding of the world - I like to learn new things. But you'll have to make do with rational arguments, not hand-waving.

[youngmike]

eu is doomed because of the malfunctioning monetary system called euro which is stagnating most countries and benefits only germany, now even germany stagnating like bitbay or blocknet 
then sanctions against russia makes russian people angry because they don't produce anything but oil and they are going broke and then putin can say it's europe's fault and attack to eu  then ww3

[picolo]

eu is doomed because of the malfunctioning monetary system called euro which is stagnating most countries and benefits only germany, now even germany stagnating like bitbay or blocknet 
then sanctions against russia makes russian people angry because they don't produce anything but oil and they are going broke and then putin can say it's europe's fault and attack to eu  then ww3

EU problems are not the Euro it's the debt, the big governments that suck most the wealth creation.

[youngmike]

eu is doomed because of the malfunctioning monetary system called euro which is stagnating most countries and benefits only germany, now even germany stagnating like bitbay or blocknet 
then sanctions against russia makes russian people angry because they don't produce anything but oil and they are going broke and then putin can say it's europe's fault and attack to eu  then ww3

EU problems are not the Euro it's the debt, the big governments that suck most the wealth creation.

Euro is also the problem because it doesn't bend like national currencies used to so it's creating a massive unemployment in some countries (too strong euro for exports -> gdp shortfall) and benefits some countries, mostly germany (too cheap euro)  That's why some countries like italy or finland are in a dept cycle. 

[ObscureBean]

Delegating responsibility (to the 'ones at the top') has always been the primary means of mitigating guilt. It does not come as a surprise that your argument strongly supports possibility number one.

I'm under no illusion that there is no systemic component to the problem - that is to say, replace the "one at the top" with someone else, and you'll often still get the same outcome. But that doesn't invalidate anything I said so far: these policies are still not laws of nature; and they, and indeed society, have been changing as awareness increases. To give obvious examples: slavery and racism are no longer viewed as being acceptable; women can vote; popular participation in policy decisions is increasing; etc.. So, I fail to see how, in your view, my argument supports the idea that this will lead to an overcoming of individual free will through force (I imagine you mean, forming the equivalent of a totalitarian state) - that is, unless your idea of free will is doing any and everything you want, without having to deal with the consequences (like jumping out of a cliff and not having to fall).

Unfortunately it is impossible for me to further elaborate on my comment without challenging your fundamental understanding of the world. Proceeding past this point on an intellectual level will only lead to a dead end, it is unavoidable. From here you have to come to your own conclusions. Good luck!

That seems like a cop-out. Feel free to challenge my fundamental understanding of the world - I like to learn new things. But you'll have to make do with rational arguments, not hand-waving.

I think you should try and read my second comment again, this time with a more relaxed mind, there is more to it than what your comments suggest you've understood. All I'll say is that I don't use words randomly and that all my comments/responses are complete (by that I mean they contain all essential information and don't require follow-ups)
The reason I don't wanna discuss this topic further is simple, it will not achieve anything. It is clear from your second comment that your understanding cannot realistically be challenged, it is not yet set in stone but I estimate my chances of penetrating your defenses to be less than 3%.  This means that writing pages of text, while time consuming, will have little to no effect. I believe however that you have enough material to work with (from our comments so far) in case you are genuinely curious 

[u9y42]

I think you should try and read my second comment again, this time with a more relaxed mind, there is more to it than what your comments suggest you've understood. All I'll say is that I don't use words randomly and that all my comments/responses are complete (by that I mean they contain all essential information and don't require follow-ups)
The reason I don't wanna discuss this topic further is simple, it will not achieve anything. It is clear from your second comment that your understanding cannot realistically be challenged, it is not yet set in stone but I estimate my chances of penetrating your defenses to be less than 3%.  This means that writing pages of text, while time consuming, will have little to no effect. I believe however that you have enough material to work with (from our comments so far) in case you are genuinely curious  

Alright, hand-waving it is then - kthxbye.

[hdbuck]

lituania in.. greece out?

[picolo]

lituania in.. greece out?

Greece is not out quite yet!

[samaricanin]

These 3 Big Elections May Determine Europe's Fate

On January 1, Lithuania became the newest member of the Eurozone, joining a club of eighteen other nations in a currency union that has troubled Europe’s economy for the past several years. Unfortunately, the celebration over Lithuanian membership will be short lived, because 2015 will prove to be a turbulent year. Indeed, three important elections pose an existential threat to the European Union as we know it:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/these-3-big-elections-may-determine-europes-fate-11972

[picolo]

These 3 Big Elections May Determine Europe's Fate

On January 1, Lithuania became the newest member of the Eurozone, joining a club of eighteen other nations in a currency union that has troubled Europe’s economy for the past several years. Unfortunately, the celebration over Lithuanian membership will be short lived, because 2015 will prove to be a turbulent year. Indeed, three important elections pose an existential threat to the European Union as we know it:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/these-3-big-elections-may-determine-europes-fate-11972

Greece

Britain

Italy. Europe will be kept together if the politics want it but it could become a smaller group of states.