Germany wants to take control of the Greek budget ?!

[Gustaf]

Anyone who claims the EU is a threat to national soverignty is a nationalist scare-mongerer who has read too may British tabloids /everyone about 5 years ago

[Gustaf]

Anyone who claims the EU is a threat to national soverignty is a nationalist scare-mongerer who has read too may British tabloids /everyone about 5 years ago

Well, clearly the threat here is Germany, rather than the EU. The real story of the crisis is one of Germany and France behaving as if the union is just an extension of their own national sovereignty. Merkozy is the thing you ought to be railing against Gustaf, not the European Institutions, which are too weak to act on their own.

They couldn't do this without the EU (and they wouldn't because there would be no reason). I prefer to deal in realities of what the EU actually is rather than in ideals of what it would be in my fantasy-land.

[Gustaf]

Anyone who claims the EU is a threat to national soverignty is a nationalist scare-mongerer who has read too may British tabloids /everyone about 5 years ago

Well, clearly the threat here is Germany, rather than the EU. The real story of the crisis is one of Germany and France behaving as if the union is just an extension of their own national sovereignty. Merkozy is the thing you ought to be railing against Gustaf, not the European Institutions, which are too weak to act on their own.

They couldn't do this without the EU (and they wouldn't because there would be no reason). I prefer to deal in realities of what the EU actually is rather than in ideals of what it would be in my fantasy-land.

Trying to look at what goes wrong and from there formulating goals for the future (i.e. strengthenin' the common institution at the expense of the influence of the larger member states) isn't constructing a fantasy land.

But the EU, as it is, is this. It's not as if there is another EU out there where France and Germany do not call the shots. Nor is such an entity particularly feasible.

And as I said, the reason why they want to control Greece's budget is because of the euro. Otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue. Trying to pretend as if this is unrelated to the EU and would not happen if there was more EU is...well. I'm not sure what to call it.

[Gustaf]

Anyone who claims the EU is a threat to national soverignty is a nationalist scare-mongerer who has read too may British tabloids /everyone about 5 years ago

Well, clearly the threat here is Germany, rather than the EU. The real story of the crisis is one of Germany and France behaving as if the union is just an extension of their own national sovereignty. Merkozy is the thing you ought to be railing against Gustaf, not the European Institutions, which are too weak to act on their own.

They couldn't do this without the EU (and they wouldn't because there would be no reason). I prefer to deal in realities of what the EU actually is rather than in ideals of what it would be in my fantasy-land.

Trying to look at what goes wrong and from there formulating goals for the future (i.e. strengthenin' the common institution at the expense of the influence of the larger member states) isn't constructing a fantasy land.

But the EU, as it is, is this. It's not as if there is another EU out there where France and Germany do not call the shots. Nor is such an entity particularly feasible.

The US, as it is, is as it is now. It's not as if there's some US out there that doesn't run massive deficits, assures all of its citizens affordable healthcaren and has outlawed the death penalty. Nor is such an entity entirely feasible. It'd be better if we just disbanded the US.

I really don't get what point you're trying to make. I'm not claiming the EU isn't what it is, I'm claiming it has the possibility to be so much more than it is, which is the fundamental aspiration of all politics. (Except maybe for the reactionary variant).

Eh, that's not a valid analogy. The US has outlawed the death penalty before, for example. Whereas the EU has never been democratic or functioning. Nor has it ever been a guarantor of Greek sovereignty.

[Gustaf]

Angus, it should be noted that Germany never wanted the euro. It was pushed on them against their will. They realized they would probably end up paying for it.

[Gustaf]

Angus, it should be noted that Germany never wanted the euro. It was pushed on them against their will. They realized they would probably end up paying for it.

Who exactly are you calling "Germany" here? Not our governing classes - the people who're using it right now to plunder everything of value in Greece in an unholy alliance with eurosceptic popular sentiment.
It's true that such sentiment about the currency ever existed, and polls never showed majority support for it. Though what would have happened with a referendum and a referendum campaign, no one can say for certain. Mostly because such things do not exist here.

From what I understand there was considerable skepticism among the German elites as well (although not as much) but they went along with it in exchange for German unification.

[Gustaf]

Angus, it should be noted that Germany never wanted the euro. It was pushed on them against their will. They realized they would probably end up paying for it.

Who exactly are you calling "Germany" here? Not our governing classes - the people who're using it right now to plunder everything of value in Greece in an unholy alliance with eurosceptic popular sentiment.
It's true that such sentiment about the currency ever existed, and polls never showed majority support for it. Though what would have happened with a referendum and a referendum campaign, no one can say for certain. Mostly because such things do not exist here.

From what I understand there was considerable skepticism among the German elites as well (although not as much) but they went along with it in exchange for German unification.

Lol no. Unification and the Euro have nothing whatsoever to do with each other except being invented (in part) by the same people. First the one, then the other. Theo Waigel conquers the world.

Well, this is what Wikipedia says: "France and the UK were opposed to German reunification, and attempted to influence the Soviet Union to stop it.[7] However, in late 1989 France extracted German commitment to the Monetary Union in return for support for German reunification.[8]"

That's also the version of history I've heard generally. West Germany was similar in population to France, the UK and Italy so there was worry about a unified Germany being too powerful in the EU. It was thought that removing the D-mark would reduce that power.

What basis do you have for thinking this to be obviously untrue?

[Gustaf]

Well, this is what Wikipedia says: "France and the UK were opposed to German reunification, and attempted to influence the Soviet Union to stop it.[7] However, in late 1989 France extracted German commitment to the Monetary Union in return for support for German reunification.[8]"

Wikipedia?!  Really?

Well, anyway, that's the standard wisdom here.  It's what I've always heard as well.  Although, now that I know that this is what Wikipedia says I can't help but suspect its accuracy.

Gustaf, mere words cannot express my severe disappointment in you just now.  Please, don't ever begin a debate rebuttle by saying, "well, Wikipedia says..."

It's like saying, "Well, my grandmother, who dropped out of school in the seventh grade says.."

Actually, it's worse than that, because at least you know your grandmother.  At least you love her and can be excused for believing her.  But to quote some article in a non-scholarly, non-edited source, probably written by a seventh grader, is in bad form.

Trondheim wins this portion of the debate, no matter what you say now.

Haha, very funny.

Wikipedia is usually a decent indicator of what is considered mainstream views, unless it's an article that has just been hacked or is about something completely obscure. I don't think either is true in this case.

I'd also like to point out that I didn't say "I am right, because Wikipedia says..." or anything like that. I merely pointed to this piece of information.

Also, I don't get your confusion on the UK's actions. They're not part of the euro so they don't want to pay for it. What's wrong with that?

[Gustaf]

Anyway,

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/28/german-unification-conditioned-to-acceptance-of-euro-reveal-documents

"Deceased French president Francois Mitterrand in 1989 gave his approval to German unification on condition that then Chancellor Helmut Kohl opened the way for the creation of an only currency in the European Union."

"The magazine supports the facts with statements from then Mitterrand advisor and later Foreign Affairs minister Hubert Védrine, who said that the French president would not accept German unification, divided since the end of WW2, unless it was coupled to European integration which necessarily implied monetary union and a single currency."

"The former President of the Bundesbank Karl Otto Pöhl was even clearer, stating: 'The European monetary union would not have come about without German reunification and vice versa.'"

Here's an English link to the Spiegel article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719940,00.html

[Gustaf]

Angus, it should be pointed out that there are two effects going on when the currency weakens. One is that the price of American export goods fall abroad, leading to more exports. Secondly, the price of imported goods go up in the US, leading to less imports and more consumption of domestically produced goods.

Both effects lead to more domestic production. This helps keep up employment in the country. In this way, counter-intuitively as it may seem, I'd argue that currency devaluation is more fair - it spreads the cost of an economic downturn across society, mostly harming the upper echelons - those who go abroad on vacation or buy imported foreign goods.

Without currency devaluation a downturn will largely be shouldered by those who lose their jobs.