h1

Toward a federal Europe?

November 13, 2012

An off the cuff conversation between Tw1itteratti (UK) and Polinerio (Sweden) that occurred over a game of chess played during October 2012.

polinerio: I just read your blog about the EU and the Nobel peace prize. It is
well written, however I fully disagree with your opinions in the post.

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: You think Europe is a failed enterprise? Or do you think
federalism will ultimately fail?

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: I think the EU is a failed enterprise. It is totally undemocratic
and a it’s economic model is deeply flawed as we can see at this moment.


——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: Hmmmm now I kind of agree with you in some of the specifics,
but I think the spirit of the eU is as I have written. Flawed economic model
does not negate the idea of a successful integrated model.

Tw1itteratti: I think there are wrinkles to be ironed out

Tw1itteratti: But the enterprise is positive for humanity

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: Tell that to the millions of demonstrators in the Spain, Greece,
soon England, Portugal and others

polinerio: The biggest problem is that it’s just another layer of politics, a
VERY ineffective and expensive layer I might add, where the sovereignty is
being exported from individual member countries to a centralized power
structure

polinerio: Also I think that the EU receiving the peace prize is a complete
joke

polinerio: The Nobel peace prize is a total joke

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: Hmmm. Have you been affected badly yourself?

Tw1itteratti: I thought Sweden was doing rather nicely?

Tw1itteratti: The last time I was in Southern Europe I noticed how the had
built fantastics monoliths to the EU, spending money they didn’t have. They
got drunk on euro cash.

Tw1itteratti: And now they have a self inflicted hangover. That does not
negate the Eu enterprise.

Tw1itteratti: England’s austerity measures caused our problems. Thankfully
we came out of recession yesterday.

Tw1itteratti: The EU is a successful fraternity, the whole continent is
working to fix the financial crisis. Everyone is lulling together. If that is
not fraternity among nations, what is?

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: Sweden is doing relatively well, yes. I have not been affected by
the financial crises myself, this is just my opinion.

polinerio: I wouldn’t trust any governments financial statistics…

polinerio: And you do realize that the English centralbank has been printing
money like crazy?

polinerio: The Euro is basically a monetary prison for it’s member states

polinerio: If you have a large negative budget deficit you usually cut the
valuation of your currency so that you can become competitive in the global
market

polinerio: That is why Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece never get out of their
austerity

polinerio: Austerity in itself kills any possible growth, so their economies
are in a death spiral

polinerio: Also you didn’t reply to my point about the EU being undemocratic

polinerio: Lots of officials in the EU itself and even prime ministers of
several of these economically ailing countries are not democratically
unelected

polinerio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB0yKGxuOb4

polinerio: A video clip with Nigel Farage, the only one who isn’t so into the
whole Euro project to see it for what it really is

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: I value your opinion because you have thought about it. It
is not mere spin fed to you through newsprint. You know what is going on in
the rest of Europe and you know about the British Government’s quantative
easing (money printing) as a means for devaluing currency to be more
competitive. You know about how the poorer countries of southern Europe will
never be able to pay their EU bills and will endure austerity tantamount to
slavery. You can see the fundamental injustice embedded within the EU
enterprise and you have learned to distrust the homespun financial statistics
trotted out by well meaning economists who cannot decide whether they are
Keynsians or Friedmans, or Marxists. Nevertheless, I think these are
tumultuous times where ‘needs must’. Sometimes bitter medicine is the only
medicine. I think Nigel farage is a fully paid up member of the rich club in
the city of London. He is only concerned with what makes the City wealthy, not
what benefits Europe.

Tw1itteratti: He is articulate and has made a number of pointed
observations within the tradition of a skeptic but his contribution is only
valuable to the narrow interests he represents rather than the greater whole.
Personally I think he is a pompus blown up puppet of US financial interest
that does not wish to see a left leaning Europe that would ultimately protect
the flow of capital to the US treasury. I agree the EU has not implemented
democracy as well as it should have. It tends to rule by irritating diktat
with rules that seem to descend downwards without going through sovereigh
parliaments. This is a problem that needs to be addressed through futher
discussion and development of the EU model. Personally, I find the EU laws and
principles to be sound. They are a very effective safe guard to sovereign
parliaments that may abuse the democracies they have. I agree the way they
operate needs to change.

Tw1itteratti: Apologies – I cannot watch a YouTube clip while I am in the
office!! 🙂 The EU enterprise is valueable in my view because it gives Europe
the weight it needs politically to drive global events rather than be driven
by them. Right now we are a side show to China, US and Russia. Pretty soon
we’ll be a side show to South America, so I think a federal Europe is good for
world order, world peace and world trade. Ultimately, I think the
interlectual, morale, and civilised future of the planet rests in Europe. I
think Europe is far and away the best place of the planet, which is why
countries are queuing up to join.

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: Nigel Farage is the last person I’d claim to be bought out by rich
people. The same cannot be said for any of the others in the European
parliment.

polinerio: or rich club as you call it.

polinerio: Can you define the rich club in London

polinerio: Also how do you define “bitter medicine”?

polinerio: Can you give some arguments or proof of him being a bought out
politician?

polinerio: Politicians are experts in doing the exact opposite of what they
should be doing, to qoute Doug Casey, which I agree with. Nigel Farage wants
to deconstruct the EU and shut the whole project down.

polinerio: I find many EU laws superfluous and they are experts at coming up
with new laws that are just a drag on innovation and creativity

polinerio: the EU parliment

polinerio: Instead I would rather see a economic agreement between the
European countries for free trade and those parts and skip Brussels and all
those parts

polinerio: I think supranational entities like the IMF, World Bank, WHO, WTO
are very dangerous and should be dismantled

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: Farage is a freeman of the city of London. Farage said: “I
am delighted and honoured to have been inducted as a Freeman of the City of
London. My father, grandfather have spent their working lives in the Square
Mile, as did I for the first 15 years of mine. Now my sons are doing the same.
The oath that I was required to swear calls upon me to, ‘Maintain the
Franchises and Customs (of the City), and will keep this City harmless’. He
worked and still is a partner in a London Metals commodity business. Ie he is
a fully paid up member of teh Square Mile crony club. The rich club is him and
his Crony capitalists that keep the franchises and customs of the city
‘harmless’. Ie the guys the screwed the global financial markets. Bitter
medicine refers to austerity measures that reign in public spending in
countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. In exchange, these
countries will be supported centrally by the EU and the IMF.


Tw1itteratti: Deconstructing the EU helps no one except those that have an
interest in the chaos that would ensue. No doubt Farage and his cronys would
stay being very rich while the poor of Europe are thrown into destitution. I
agree with you about some of the laws being superflous. More work is required
in this area. Free trade requires free but regulated markets requiring common
policies for fisheries, agricultures, energy, carbon etc. The management of
these need to be centrally administered. It could easily be Paris, Berlin or
London, its still needs centralised control. Without it, the markets will
fragment and splinter, and trade will not be even.

Tw1itteratti: Creativity abounds in Italy, France, the UK and Germany. I
dont think anything is stifling it. My company, is making very good progress
trading in Europe and the UK, and its very easy! I agree with you about
supranational entities like the IMF or WTO. I feel these are infultrated with
powerful interests that do not have EU citizens interest at heart.

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: I’m glad to hear that your company is doing well! Your points are
thought provoking and I will respond to them tomorrow.

polinerio: What I can gather about the honour freeman of the city of London is
that it is merely a symbolic honour and that you can practically buy it (by
donating to the Freemen’s school). So while it might indicate that he is
bought out by the ‘rich club’, it doesn’t follow from the fact. Other and more
pervasive proof is required to form an opinion. And that oath doesn’t imply
anything in my opinion. It is very reasonable that you should work to maintain
the franchises and customs, assuming they are born from common sense, and the
last part, ‘will keep this City harmless’, most likely just means that he
won’t instigate any uprising against Her Majesty. I don’t see a problem with
him being a partner of a Metals firm, after all live in a capitalistic world.

polinerio: The ones that screwed the financial markets are certain central
banks and most megabanks in today’s world and I don’t see any clear connection
to Nigel Farage from those, rather he has publicly stated his opinion of all
these bailouts as being nothing more than taxpayer’s money going to bail out
some financial crooks.

polinerio: Well, you just admitted earlier that the bitter pill won’t actually
solve the problem, so that approach most likely doesn’t work. In my opinion,
the countries that are indebted to certain megabanks should just repudiate
their loans. In a free market the bank extends loans to customers they expect
will be able to pay back, but not to customers that probably won’t be able to
pay back. And in this free market it is obviously the megabanks who have made
multiple, massive loans to countries that will never be able to pay back the
debt as well as screwed the financial markets through their leveraged
gambling. And the losses will be paid for by the innocent taxpayer, which is
ridiculous I am sure you would agree with.

polinerio: The price these countries have to pay for being centrally supported
by the EU and the IMF (which is a global financial hitman and usurper) is to
relinquish the property of the state (selling it for most likely less money
that it’s actual value) and their sovereignty – which is a very hefty price to
pay and which is in the spirit of the EU in my opinion, when it should be the
opposite.

polinerio: Deconstructing the EU would enable countries to go back to their
former national currency, which would enable countries to devalue their
currency and so gain competitivesness in the global economy. The cost of
supporting this extreme bureaucratic construction is massive and it could
effectively be used elsewhere to solve more pressing problems. It is also
clear that a reset of the debt levels the world over is needed, or possibly by
insituting a new Bretton Woods and balance the debt levels somehow.

polinerio: I agree with your point that some centrally controlled system for
enforcing laws of trade is needed, but not much more than that. So in my
opinion, there should be an EU that enforces applicable trade and manipulation
laws for commerce and also implements a free market within the EU. But only
these two parts.

polinerio: My statement that the EU is stifling creativity is that the more
rules – or in this case laws – the more boxed in you become in your thinking.
The politicians in MEP doesn’t know anything else than come up with news laws,
because it is their job. I think many times these laws are just ridiculous,
for instance that some countries have to burn fish or grains to stay within
some arbitrary quota set by these politicians. When world starvation is a big
problem in today’s world how much sense does that make?

polinerio: In a capitalistic society you express creativity by having an idea
(of course there are many other ways to express creativity, but within the
context of a free market) and then starting a company using your idea (maybe a
great product that many want or a service that people have need for) and if
you have a society where there are so many laws about financial regulations
about taxes etc etc it makes it much harder to run a company and ultimately
the consequence is that creativity is stifled because it is simply not worth
the trouble.

polinerio: You will have to excuse me for writing out obvious things in some
sentences, but it is more for myself to crystallize my thinking and get more
insight into these very interesting questions/problems..

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: Hmmm… I guess I am highly distrustful of Nigel Farage.
there are many out there who like him. Maybe he speaks for them. He does’nt
speak for me. His logic and rational is something that does’nt speak to me.
His epic warnings and clever tirades don’t speak to me. He is a type of
pompous conservative politician that did nothing while successive Tory
governments decimated whole regions of the UK, slinging millions of families
into poverty and creating multiple generations that have not worked all their
lives. No doubt he made his millions following in his daddy’s business,
meanhile he supports and supported conservative policies that ensure merit
alone will not allow your social mobility.

Tw1itteratti: He believes OWS is just ‘fatuous, anti enterprise, left
wingery’, that OWS should actually target EU agencies and the FSA rather than
the ‘well run firms making up the uK financial services industry’ and he
believes in breaking up the EU so that the poorer states are flung into the
same state of destitution the people of the north and west of England were
condemned to a generation ago. Those people are dying now, but there children
are quietyly getting angrier and angrier as their communities disintegrate
before they have even left school.

Tw1itteratti: For as articulate and amusing as the man is in his tirade
against the EU, he offers nothing in return. His UKIP party and their policies
is exclusively about rolling back everything the EU made possible, turning the
UK into a bunch of little islanders – no doubt returning us to a feudal system
where the rich and powerful control all the resources. If you read the UKIP
manifesto its enough to make a global citizen weep, because its not a vehicle
for social change. Rather its a document with a load of ill- thought out
poliicies, whose only coherence is its rejection of a European ideal.
Still…. I think we disagree about such things, but is was jolly nice talking
about it.

Tw1itteratti: Concerning your point about “tax payers money bailing out
some financial crooks”, I think Farage cannot divorce himself from the de-
regulation he also supported during the good years that allowed the mega banks
to consider stupid loans and massive leverage. It was well known by him and
all finanical services that the tax payer was always going to pick up the tab
if things went wrong. And what’s more…. its not changing any time soon. If
you want things to be different the system requires a global market zeitgeist.
Farage is not proposing that.

Tw1itteratti: I tend to agree with you about smaller countries being
expected to relinquish their state assets and sovereignty to service their
debts. This is very troubling development and will need to be looked at much
more thoroughly. I dont know who is working on this but it is a very dangerous
state of affairs. Never the less I think the best hope of resolving this lies
within a strong and democratic Europe utilising a globally agreed reset.
Deconstructing Europe would spell global disaster. You cannot put Humpty
Dumpty back together again. The devaluing of sovereign currencies would plunge
states into hyper inflation and would cause war. At the very least the
universal unrest would create nationalistic and racial tensions the world
has’nt seen since WW1 and WW2. Hyper inflation would occur for a host of
economic reasons that we can go into later if you wish.

Tw1itteratti: I agree with your point about politicians in MEP and there
being too many laws. I also agree with Farage that there is a gravy train the
unelected beaureacrats are riding. For me this is an opportunity for reform
within the EU model. I would prefer a more directly democratic process rather
than MEPs. Ie there would be an administrative set of functions (working out
of Brusslls) with policies directly controlled by an electorate on matters of
all EU policy. A direct democracy should avoid problems like burning fish and
grain due to over production as the electoarate are empowered to redirect
production. In other words, I think the EU is ripe for reform and direct
democracy, not deconstruction.

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: Lol, those last questions were very badly written by me. Ignore
those – I’ll restate them here.

polinerio: I have very quickly scanned the pages of the UKIP 2012 manifesto
and it seems quite reasonable in most cases I think.

polinerio: “successive Tory governments decimated whole regions of the UK,
slinging millions of families into poverty and creating multiple generations
that have not worked all their lives.” What exactly do you mean here?

polinerio: How did successive Tory governments decimate whole regions of the
UK?

polinerio: And what policies are you referring to here: “conservative
policies that ensure merit alone will not allow your social mobility.”?

polinerio: If we would let the free market operate on it’s own, the economy
would recover in time. We are really far from a free market – almost as far as
we can get. If we continue kicking the can down the road we will surely one
day run into a economic wall.

polinerio: The OWS movement has no goal or leadership and without these things
I think it’s very hard to actually empower change through discussion. It’s
just too badly organized and too unprofessional in my view.

polinerio: Why would the currencies hyperinflate if we let EU member nations
return to their national currencies? I know that that it will be a race to
debase, but that’s effectively what we have today so I don’t see any
difference. The only way for the economy to recover is for the free market to
operate and purge debt and malinvestment. A EU isn’t going to solve the
financial crises, rather they are just making it worse.

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: Looking at UKIP manifesto, I am certain you would see the
problems the minute you apply that depth of thinking to it. For example, they
are talking about a flat 31% tax rate. Sounds OK accept there is no
explanation as to how you transition to this rate. It cuts almost 25% from the
overall tax take. How is this to be filled….? More corporation tax? .. No.
Cutting public services..? Perhaps, but that would decimate the UK. It’s easy
policy… I

Tw1itteratti: Unlikely to be delivered. It’s just talk.

Tw1itteratti: Will conjure 1 million new jobs. 500k in manufacturing and
the rest support supply chain. This is fantastic bollocks.

Tw1itteratti: It’s just easy talk, easy policy. No explanation, no method,
no if, buts, or maybe.

Tw1itteratti: The whole manifesto can be shredded with without much effort
at all.

Tw1itteratti: The story of what the Tories did under Margret Thatcher is a
deep blood red scar. In defeating the unions, she and the Tories wrecked the
nation. The story is simply too long to be told here. I could not do it
justice talking to you face to face for two hours. The damage was profound. I
am 45 and lived every miserable minute of those Thatcher years. If you were
middle class and above, Ben you did not

Tw1itteratti: Then you may not have noticed what went on. If you were
working class. ( the majority was at the time), then you were affected
extremely negatively.

Tw1itteratti: No social housing, no manufacturing, no steel, no coal, no
pottery, no automobile industry. All decimated by the Tories.

Tw1itteratti: No unions, privatisation of everything, no health…. The
list goes on and on and on. I’m no socialist Marxist , but the implementation
was like a guillotine. The heartbreaking stories of lives ruined were the
subject if countless dramas and gritty films. Drugs, alcohol abuse, domestic
violence, property crime, depression, suicide, teenage pregnancy, social
dependency all surged during those miserable ears in the 80’s and early 90’s.
Meanwhile Farage quaffed champaign with his city boy mates.

Tw1itteratti: OWS is a movement, it’s not a political party, it’s there to
tell you there is a problem. Our job is to understand he message and create
the structures for change. It’s lazy dismissing the sentiments expressed by
those members of society awake enough to trumpet the problem.

Tw1itteratti: the OWS message is all about recognising that we are
manipulated participants in a rigged game. Where we simply transfer our
providence to a greedy few.

Tw1itteratti: I will come back to this………..

Tw1itteratti: For hyper inflation look what happened to Zimbabwe or just
look what’s happenng in Iran. Both countries currencies are now junk. They
have to buy expensive dollars just to exist and their people are becoming
destitute.

Tw1itteratti: Free markets are great as long as hey are free. How free do
you really think the markets are when the US controls th main currency of the
main commodity.

Tw1itteratti: petro-dollar skews the market to the interests of the US
treasury and the biggest economy on the planet. Those guys determine the
market and it’s not free.

Tw1itteratti: That may change soon!! …. We can cover that a bit later.

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: I agree with you regard their manifesto, it is sorely lacking.

polinerio: regarding*

polinerio: Could you direct me to a good source regarding the Thatcher years
and what she did?

polinerio: Obviously the OWS demonstrators are right in their understanding
that they are getting royally screwed financially by banks and other financial
institutions. Still I feel like there are a tad too strong socialistic
tendencies for my taste. Basically they would crucify anyone who has a high
net worth. Also my main point regarding was simply that the lack of a goal and
some form of leadership greatly diminishes the potency of their message. Many
not as affected as the demonstrators don’t really see the message I think.
That’s why I think the movement would benefit a lot from having better
organization and a clearer goal.

polinerio: I don’t exactly see the connection between Iran and Zimbabwe with
say for UK if they were to leave the EU. In the first case the hyperinflation
was the result of land reforms done by Mugabe. In Irans case see the following
article: http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-there-is-no-hyperinflation-
in-iran-2012-10

polinerio: Regarding free markets: It was actually my point that we are very
very far from a free market. At this point, as you say, the markets are so
rigged and distorted that they don’t resemble a market anymore at all.

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: A good source for the history of Maggie Thatcher
http://www.socialismtoday.org/128/thatcher.html You will also find this
article on my blog. OWS is a bit scruffy and counter cultural, but I think
that is the image the mainstream want you to see. OWS also has a lot of
members and sympathisers that do not live in tents smoking pot. It has plenty
of high net worth sympathisers – including some in the Bank of England.

Tw1itteratti: The goal of OWS is bring to a conscious level the awareness
that morality has been subtracted from capitalism and replaced with the greed
of a few. The few have global control of the politicians, the legistlature,
the police, the markets and the military industrial complex and are not
accountable democratically. OWS is about breaking down that power and putting
it back in the hands of the people. I have a lot of time for OWS as it has
brought into focus a context i had previously taken for granted. Ie that we
don’t have genuinely democratic choices, that we all proceed in predefined
patterns to maintain a status quo that keeps the few in their positions of
power without us ever knowing. All we do when we elect people is change that
mask on the manniken. The US political system is a perfect example of this,
because money buys your ability to run for office even as a senator. You are
in debt to private interest before you even start representing public
interest.

Tw1itteratti: This has the effect of paralyzing you. It takes a disaster
like Sandy to re-animate politicians into their public responsibilities.

Tw1itteratti: The Business Insider article was a good one, particularly if
Iran is genuinely avoiding hyper-inflation. I mentioned hyper-inflation to
focus on what happens to countries whose currencies devalue quickly. By
breaking up the EU, devalution and hyper-inflation would result for a number
of counties similar to Zimbabwe and (to some extent) Iran. For example, A
return to the Lira would be very bad news for Italy as their exports would
ake less, and their imports would cost more. Their currency would adjust
downward and their public services would crumble.etc etc etc… I guess this
is all economic theory and is no more valid than the next schmucks opinion.

Tw1itteratti: I think we are on the same page about free markets. I think
the EU model is better than both the China and American models, but is
weakened because it is not a joined up federal entity. In its current state it
struggles to influence and will likely be battered by events it cannot
dictate. That said, US hegemony is ending as the world is proving too much for
the mighty Americans to manage on their own, so maybe a federal EU can be
avoided!

Tw1itteratti: Philosophically, maybe the idea of large nation super states
is going to change anyway. Countries like China, the US and Russia may
fragment into smaller national enclaves over the next 100 years, as technology
and direct democracy empower individual autonomy. Anyway… this has been a
long conversation but very important. It has sharpened my faculties and has
given me quite a hopeful view of an EU future.

polinerio: I’m writing a response and a kind of summary of our discussion thus
far. I think it’s important to summarize our “findings” from our discussion so
that our insight into these problems will perhaps grow.

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: Yes, regarding the OWS I agree with your sentiment overall. It was
perhaps just bad wording on my part which made it look like I was very
negative towards the message of the movement. I am very sympathetic towards
their message and agree with your point that OWS is not a political party and
therefore you cannot expect the same degree of coherence in their message or a
leadership that can give out that message.

polinerio: As far as hyperinflation goes: Hyperinflation occurs as an
overprinting of currency and the reason countries would do that is to be able
to service their national debt and domestic responsibilities. I advocate
repudiating the debts that various countries have accumulated to this point.
If for example Italy would do that they could exit the Euro and since there is
no need to service a large black debt hole, there is no need for overprinting
of currency and thus no hyperinflation will occur as a result. The countries
could instead use that money to rebuild their economies and then the free
market would make sure that economies would balance themselves out. So I think
that is mostly propaganda used by EU pundits as an argument to keep the EU
intact.

polinerio: Secondly you have to keep in mind that at some point this debtfest
will have to end and in EUs current form member countries are getting drunk on
debt and at some point there will be a hangover, i.e. a hyperinflation. And
the reason is simply because these debt levels that we have are not
sustainable; the ECB cannot continue to print money. I predict there will be a
revolution before long in either of these countries that are being belt
tightened incrementally. So basically it’s either take an economical fall at
this point or kick the can down the road and have a major economic crash.

polinerio: Summary of our discussion thus far of the EU (note that this is my
interpretation of our discussion and our conclusions ) The EU is (from a
negative standpoint): 1. The EU and its workings are largely undemocratic 2.
The EU is getting more and more undemocratic as we speak 3. It stifles
innovation and creativity because of many unnecessary laws 4. It disturbs the
free market through arbitrary and idiotic rules 5. The structure is insanely
inefficient and costly 6. It is used as a milk cow for politicians and also
used to abuse power

polinerio: The EU is (from a positive standpoint): 1. Allows Europe as a whole
to act as one country, thus in theory having greater power over world affairs
(maybe moot point because as you say, the days as US as a world power is
numbered and the communistic regime in China will produce a revolution or a
breakup of the country at some point) 2. The union of countries has been and
is a major factor in that there have been no wars since WW2. (False. There is
no concrete proof for it, rather common sense indicates that the EU has no
part whatsoever in this) 3. The EU enables the member countries to act as one
major market and use a single currency and that way further trade between
member countries as well as imports/exports to the EU. (Can be accomplished
without all the pompous politicians in Brussels by having a centralized
structure that ONLY makes sure no market rigging goes on (which by the way the
EU as it is now has been completely incompetent in noticing blatant market
rigging and interest

polinerio: rate rigging by massive international banks (note that the EU is a
massive rigger and distorter of the free market, mainly by rigging interest
rates of member countries as well as controlling free market mechanisms and it
will very likely just get worse))

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: Hmmmm Nice summary.. Now off to my blog it goes!

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: Hahah, are you sure about that? 😀

polinerio: Thought you would disagree quite a bit 🙂

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: Well I do, but your summary is so unbalanced the reader is
forced back into the body text

Tw1itteratti: Which is where I want them.

——————————————————————————————————

polinerio: Ok, well it could be quite interesting to see the reactions I
guess.

polinerio: Why don’t you do a similar summary? Would be interesting to see

——————————————————————————————————

Tw1itteratti: No problem

Tw1itteratti: Looking at the EU, one can be jaundiced about it and adopt the sceptic position quite easily. After all, large state services create large bureaucracies to administer them. These swallow large amounts of cash and the benefits are often not clear. Consider communist Russia and China. Both have had large and burdensome state apparatus, which has absorbed GDP with little direct benefit to the citizen. The citizen is left poorer and with less choice than other countries where the government is smaller. And so it is in Europe. So I agree with all of your criticisms.

Tw1itteratti: 1. It is undemocratic. 2. It has many unnecessary rules, laws and regulations. 3. It is inefficient and costly 4. It is a gravy train for talentless politicians and bureaucrats In addition; 1. It has sovereign nations that contribute unevenly, with poor countries expecting the same standards of living as the richer ones without producing the same levels of output to pay for it. 2. It has member states that have their own sovereign interests that are not compatible with a federalised Europe. E.g The UK would like to retain is currency rather than switch to a single currency. 3. It has political imbalances, taxation, policing and security interests are different in nearly every sovereign state Taking a more positive spin of the whole thing once can say:

Tw1itteratti: 1. A federal Europe can build on the shared history and culture of its members to further a common benefit, while accommodating regional differences 2. A federal Europe can provide political integration like the social, cultural and sporting connections that the single market already provides. 3. A federal Europe is powerful global negotiating and trading partner. With a population of 450 million – more than the United States and Russia combined – it will be the world’s biggest trader and generate one quarter of the planets wealth.

Tw1itteratti: 4. Countries like France, Germany, UK and Italy have no negotiating power on their own against giants like the US or China. A federal Europe cannot be ignored when putting its message across. 5. Multinational corporations can play national governments off against each other in search of low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to regulate such companies by ensuring they do not interface with the market in ways that compromise member states. 6. A federal Europe would be able to force the multinationals to implement holistic policies on the environment, climate change, energy security etc to the benefit of the entire EU region.

Tw1itteratti: Overall, I think a federal Europe is a good idea even if the only advantage is subsidiarity defined as “defined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. It ensures that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made to verify that action at Union level is justified in light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level. Specifically, it is the principle whereby the Union does not take action (except in the areas that fall within its exclusive competence), unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. It is closely bound up with the principle of proportionality, which requires that any action by the Union should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.”


Tw1itteratti: By disseminating decisions to the least centralised authority, it removes nationalistic/corporate agendas. It allows for regulation to be managed evenly across the union and it allows for self criticism without breaking the unity of the whole.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: