ECB calls for European countries to 'give up sovereignty'

[Beet]

I thought central bankers were supposed to stay out of politics?

The comments of Executive Board Member José Manuel González-Páramo at Oxford University yesterday.

"The key theme that has run through my remarks today is that, from every perspective, much closer economic and financial union is essential for the euro area. (He's not kidding.)
...
We have already taken important steps in this direction. Europe is ahead of others in addressing its imbalances (This is actually true). The challenge looking forward is to complete the process towards closer union and not settle for the ‘quick fix’...And this is ultimately unavoidable, given the state of political union between countries that monetary union de facto creates. It is now a time for politicians to be bold and courageous, to recognise these trends, and to complete as soon as possible the great project begun 60 years ago towards ‘ever closer union’."

The gist of Gonzalez-Paramo's remarks are the same as that of Wolfgang Schauble to the New York Times. The crisis, is being used to help Europe complete a quantum leap in fiscal union. Those familiar with the history of the EU know that in the late 1980s, the UK insisted on the principle of subsidarity, that "the centre should perform only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at the national level". The issue now is that the worse the crisis is, the further tasks fall into just such category "cannot be performed effectively at the national level." Hence the crisis itself, by attacking national sovereignty, is aiding the EU center, whose own core institutions (the ECB, the European Commission, and theoretical eurobonds) are immune from attack.

What I could not get from his remarks was how bad the EU authorities are willing to allow things to get in the short-to-medium term (one to two years) until they complete their Treaty work and introduce euro-bonds. Based on the logic of his thinking, it is conceivable that Spain, Italy and France could see complete default, yet this would not be seen in a negative light for it would put these countries at the mercy of the German-dominated European Commission to be financed through euro-bonds.

[Politico]

What are they going to propose next, the Fourth Reich or something? Europe is screwed. This is going to make the subprime mortgage crisis look like happy days...

[NSA is just two letters away from NSDAP]

What are they going to propose next, the Fourth Reich or something?

Er, yeah, that's pretty much what's being proposed here. Though honestly if you ignore the imperialism, authoritarianism, genocide, nationalism and military aggression, the German reichs weren't so bad at all. And this new one should be devoid of all of the above.

[Yelnoc]

What are they going to propose next, the Fourth Reich or something?

Er, yeah, that's pretty much what's being proposed here. Though honestly if you ignore the imperialism, authoritarianism, genocide, nationalism and military aggression, the German reichs weren't so bad at all. And this new one should be devoid of all of the above.

The First Reich was not any of those

[Sibboleth]

What are they going to propose next, the Fourth Reich or something?

Er, yeah, that's pretty much what's being proposed here. Though honestly if you ignore the imperialism, authoritarianism, genocide, nationalism and military aggression, the German reichs weren't so bad at all. And this new one should be devoid of all of the above.

The First Reich was not any of those

You Fail History Forever.

[Yelnoc]

What are they going to propose next, the Fourth Reich or something?

Er, yeah, that's pretty much what's being proposed here. Though honestly if you ignore the imperialism, authoritarianism, genocide, nationalism and military aggression, the German reichs weren't so bad at all. And this new one should be devoid of all of the above.

The First Reich was not any of those

You Fail History Forever.

First Reich = Holy Roman Empire

Imperialism.  The concept did not exist for most of the HRE's existence.  By that time, it was an utterly disjointed mess.

Authoritarianism.  "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."  The HRE is a poster child for decentralization.  Sure, some princes and archbishops and what have you could be characterized as authoritarian, but let's not paint with broad brushes here.

Genocide.  No.

Nationalism.  Concept did not exist.  Nation did not exist.

Military Aggression.  This is specific to the time period.  For the majority of the HRE's history, however, the emperor was not the aggressor.

[Sibboleth]

First Reich = Holy Roman Empire

I know that, but thanks.

Imperialism.  The concept did not exist for most of the HRE's existence.  By that time, it was an utterly disjointed mess.

Is there only a single concept of imperialism, now? And must concepts only be used to describe things that happened after the concept was created? Of course after a certain point the Holy Roman Empire only existed as a bizarre technicality, but during its earlier centuries...

This is, of course, one of the things I was getting at. The other would be the one at the end of your list.

Authoritarianism.  "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."  The HRE is a poster child for decentralization.  Sure, some princes and archbishops and what have you could be characterized as authoritarian, but let's not paint with broad brushes here.

I like that 'could' there. Amusing.

Nationalism.  Concept did not exist.  Nation did not exist.

Oh, now this is a deeply controversial area. Especially in the context of German history, for obvious reasons.

Military Aggression.  This is specific to the time period.  For the majority of the HRE's history, however, the emperor was not the aggressor.

Everything is specific to a time period. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, that 'time period' to which you refer can, I think, be quite confidently measured in terms of centuries.

Not, incidentally, that I have any interest in engaging in sub-A.J.P. Tayloresque nonsense about some inherent will to dominate of all Germans, or any such related bollocks. I think it's a shame that so many have resorted to that kind of language recently as it isn't at all helpful, or enlightening.

[Yelnoc]

First Reich = Holy Roman Empire

I know that, but thanks.

I wasn't sure I was speaking with a historically literate person

Imperialism.  The concept did not exist for most of the HRE's existence.  By that time, it was an utterly disjointed mess.

Is there only a single concept of imperialism, now? And must concepts only be used to describe things that happened after the concept was created? Of course after a certain point the Holy Roman Empire only existed as a bizarre technicality, but during its earlier centuries...

This is, of course, one of the things I was getting at. The other would be the one at the end of your list.

Well, how do you define imperialism?  When I think of Imperialism, I think of one state dominating another.  That brings to mind the colonial empires of Britain, France, et al, which the Holy Roman Empire was never able to emulate.  Obviously imperialism should not be constrained to colonial empires, but I do not see a consistent pattern of imperial behavior on the part of the First Reich over its history.

Authoritarianism.  "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."  The HRE is a poster child for decentralization.  Sure, some princes and archbishops and what have you could be characterized as authoritarian, but let's not paint with broad brushes here.

I like that 'could' there. Amusing.

Yeah, ok, most of the duchies and what not were authoritarian, but then what medieval European state wasn't?

Nationalism.  Concept did not exist.  Nation did not exist.

Oh, now this is a deeply controversial area. Especially in the context of German history, for obvious reasons.

Right you are there.  But, I don't think you can argue that nationalism drove the policies of the Holy Roman Empire.

Military Aggression.  This is specific to the time period.  For the majority of the HRE's history, however, the emperor was not the aggressor.

Everything is specific to a time period. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, that 'time period' to which you refer can, I think, be quite confidently measured in terms of centuries.

I think this is debatable.  I admit I do not know much about the early history of the HRE, but more often then not throughout its later history, the HRE was the battle ground of neighboring powers.  The 30 Years War and Napoleonic Wars come to mind.

Not, incidentally, that I have any interest in engaging in sub-A.J.P. Tayloresque nonsense about some inherent will to dominate of all Germans, or any such related bollocks. I think it's a shame that so many have resorted to that kind of language recently as it isn't at all helpful, or enlightening.

I have to echo this; the hyperbole is very annoying.

[Sibboleth]

I wasn't sure I was speaking with a historically literate person

It pays the rent, so I like to think that I am.

Well, how do you define imperialism?

I think that would mostly depend on the context.

When I think of Imperialism, I think of one state dominating another.  That brings to mind the colonial empires of Britain, France, et al, which the Holy Roman Empire was never able to emulate.

No, not in the same way. But you did have the expansions eastwards and also into Italy. You could also link in some of the Crusades in some way, I suppose. Of course you might wonder how much some of that had to do with the state that had that name, but certainly what happened in Bohemia during the Hussite Wars would count as foreign domination and so on, even if there was a massive religious subtext (or was it the other way round?). Won't go on about this in much more detail, because I'm not a Medievalist.

Obviously imperialism should not be constrained to colonial empires, but I do not see a consistent pattern of imperial behavior on the part of the First Reich over its history.

About the only consistent thing to the Holy Roman Empire (not sure if you should use 'First Reich' outside some kind of punctuation) was that it was mostly in what we now call Germany.

Right you are there.  But, I don't think you can argue that nationalism drove the policies of the Holy Roman Empire.

It would be difficult to argue that, yes. Didn't stop some Czech historians half-arguing that during the 1950s (I think it was the 1950s) though. lol.

I think this is debatable.  I admit I do not know much about the early history of the HRE, but more often then not throughout its later history, the HRE was the battle ground of neighboring powers.  The 30 Years War and Napoleonic Wars come to mind.

Yeah, but the objection was entirely focused on the earlier periods.

[Yelnoc]

I wasn't sure I was speaking with a historically literate person

It pays the rent, so I like to think that I am.

Really?  What's your field of study?

When I think of Imperialism, I think of one state dominating another.  That brings to mind the colonial empires of Britain, France, et al, which the Holy Roman Empire was never able to emulate.

No, not in the same way. But you did have the expansions eastwards and also into Italy. You could also link in some of the Crusades in some way, I suppose. Of course you might wonder how much some of that had to do with the state that had that name, but certainly what happened in Bohemia during the Hussite Wars would count as foreign domination and so on, even if there was a massive religious subtext (or was it the other way round?). Won't go on about this in much more detail, because I'm not a Medievalist.

I would put the crusades in their own category, because of the heavy church influence and also because they tended to establish states independent of the backer(s).  But I'm not a medievalist either.

I think this is debatable.  I admit I do not know much about the early history of the HRE, but more often then not throughout its later history, the HRE was the battle ground of neighboring powers.  The 30 Years War and Napoleonic Wars come to mind.

Yeah, but the objection was entirely focused on the earlier periods.

We could probably argue about this for pages.  Safe to say, I don't think we can really talk about the HRE without breaking its history into multiple periods.  And that kind of guts broad descriptors like "First Reich."