Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[CaptainMcClellan]

Sure, the freedom to travel is nice, but there may be times when closed borders will be necessary, e.g. if social unrest in France worsens. Granted, nobody wants to see closed borders and European integration sounds nice, but is it really?

You're American, right? I think you probably have no idea just how small Europe is. It's easily possible here to travel through five countries per foot in less than a week. No free travel would be horrible! Having to get a visum every time I go visit Sheb or, hell, just want to visit that one antique market in Tongeren... I remember one thursday night when a couple friends and me drunkenly decided to go to Amsterdam. Twelve hours later we were there! That wouldn't be possible without open borders. And I'm really, really not worried about French social unrest - it's not like it will lead to another invasion.
For the same reason a single currency is a huge boon - again, having to exchange money all the time is fucking annoying. I get pissed every time I go to England because of that reason.

It'd be one thing if it were like the unification of German states in the 19th and 20th centuries where you have a group of ethnically similar peoples who were already essentially under one power sphere and mostly speak at least one common language...

One language? Ha! A Plattdeutscher, a Rhinelandian and a Bavarian speaking in their respective dialects would not understand each other at all - even less than a Frenchman would understand a Spaniard. And back when Germany was united those dialects were all that the common folks spoke. Only the elite had a common language - and in today's Europe we have English, no?

Again, that's partly why I'm asking. But I'm not even necessarially saying have a visa, but at least present ID and sign a paper before crossing borders and have the ability for countries to close borders on safety concerns without much fuss from the rest of Europe. I get why it could be annoying, but sometimes I even wish they'd set something up in the US giving some semblance of security against other states and we don't even have that many interstate safety concerns. From the news I've been getting and from my vague notions of various attitudes in Europe, it seems to an outsider like y'all do. Also, while the convenience of the Euro is nice on principle, it requires a fiscal responsibility from constituent nations to be run by some sort of federal power source and to maintain relatively even, interconnected economies, doesn't it? That seems like a detriment rather than a boon. I mean, why have a single currency that'll outrageously overinflate and wreck your economy because of factors in a different, economically unique state? ( I find this to be a problem with the dollar even. It does provide a bit of a common trade factor, but that doesn't matter much when things can be/usually are so vastly different from state to state. Again, maybe it's just because I'm underestimating the size and diversity of Europe, but it seems like that'd be a problem. I gotta admit I'm biased because I just plain don't like the Euro, but aren't there serious negative consequences and haven't countries who haven't adopted it or adopted it as the sole currency doing better economically right now than the average EU state?^*)

_{*I am basing that question based on an examination I made of Norwegian economy for a world geography project three years ago. No guarantees that's correct/still correct, hence why I'm asking.}

We don't necessarily need closed borders to allow greater border control. I too would like, for example, or ability to quarantine imported animals back before we end up with more parasites and diseases returning that have been extinct here for ~100 years. Getting more control over passing crime would he very nice too.

Yes. So long as it isn't taken too far.

[Helgoland]

a Rhinelandian

Absolute aside: I've always heard this as Rhinelander, not Rhinelandian. Is there a consensus on this term?

In day to day talk I say Rheinländer
No idea what the proper English term is. You're probably right though - Rhinelander sounds more natural.

Again, that's partly why I'm asking. But I'm not even necessarially saying have a visa, but at least present ID and sign a paper before crossing borders and have the ability for countries to close borders on safety concerns without much fuss from the rest of Europe. I get why it could be annoying, but sometimes I even wish they'd set something up in the US giving some semblance of security against other states and we don't even have that many interstate safety concerns. From the news I've been getting and from my vague notions of various attitudes in Europe, it seems to an outsider like y'all do. Also, while the convenience of the Euro is nice on principle, it requires a fiscal responsibility from constituent nations to be run by some sort of federal power source and to maintain relatively even, interconnected economies, doesn't it? That seems like a detriment rather than a boon. I mean, why have a single currency that'll outrageously overinflate and wreck your economy because of factors in a different, economically unique state? ( I find this to be a problem with the dollar even. It does provide a bit of a common trade factor, but that doesn't matter much when things can be/usually are so vastly different from state to state. Again, maybe it's just because I'm underestimating the size and diversity of Europe, but it seems like that'd be a problem. I gotta admit I'm biased because I just plain don't like the Euro, but aren't there serious negative consequences and haven't countries who haven't adopted it or adopted it as the sole currency doing better economically right now than the average EU state?

- Allow for controlling ID, and you introduce the possibility of discriminating against folks from other EU countries. "He's Romanian? Must be a filthy criminal - just arrest him, we'll find something to charge him with later." Apart from the obvious problems with that, it would be a great step away from the goal of a truly united Europe - and thus appealing to all the nationalists and crypto-nationalists running around. Similarly restricting the free flow of goods would quickly be abused by nationalist politicians to 'protect' their countries' economies.
Any restriction on the freedom of movement, the free flow of goods, and the freedom of inter-national commerce should be in the hands of EU-level institutions, not in those of the individual countries. That would allow for the quarantine measures scriver mentioned - which I'll gladly support - without endangering the unity of our proto-USE.

- Interstate safety concerns are overexaggerated: It's basically "Think of the children!" with 'children' exchanged by 'national security'. Nobody would suggest border posts along the Rhine to prevent crime, even though that would make much more sense than putting them along the German-Belgian (or -Dutch, or -French) border. Imagine how 'just having to sign a paper and show ID' would hurt those who live in one country and work in another: Their commute time would increase horribly, because oh boy will there be lines. And again the ideological damage would be immense, though if you say you'd support controls along US state borders you might have a different point of view. Increased controls along borders already happen: In Germany for example we have the Bundesgrenzschutz, literally 'Federal Border Protection', though it's called Bundespolizei now. It's tasked with just that: Protecting the borders. They're pretty busy in the East right now, what with all the meth smuggled in from the ex-Eastern Bloc countries. Open borders does not mean unprotected borders.
On a more emotional level closing the borders again reminds me unpleasantly of that other time they restricted the freedom movement around here. By the way, the Soviet Union had restrictions like that - you needed a passport and permit to travel inside that country. There's a reason we now consider the freedom of movement a human right.

- The same as above holds for interstate commerce and the Euro: Do you realize how much easier business is if you don't have to exchange currencies all the time? I still find piles of foreign coins around my parents' house, leftovers from travel overseas. It's just so goddamn inefficient. And again the ideological argument applies.

- Why don't you like the Euro? Surely there must be some reason, ideological or psychological, for that. Enlighten me - it  would probably make for interesting discussion material.

[mainiac]

- Why don't you like the Euro? Surely there must be some reason, ideological or psychological, for that. Enlighten me - it  would probably make for interesting discussion material.

It boggles my mind that anyone could not understand the reasons for disliking the Euro at this point.

[Loud Whispers]

Still can't get why Europe just won't accept single fiscal policy. If people are flocking to Germany because of this, at least their unemployment benefits will be guaranteed.

Yeah, why won't the European nations just bow down to Brussels and surrender their countries' self-rule. Over thirty years ago MPs and PMs in Britain were debating about getting the UK into the Eurozone. Those in favour said that to remain without would spell catastrophe and the death of Britain; which we now know to be utter balderdash. Those against said that a single currency was not about the economic benefits; it was purely, and only about taking all political power from national parliaments away. And judging by your sentiments and that of think tanks, eurocrats and damp Germans, that was true then and is true still. And for what? To give power to unelected officials who have a bad habit of ignoring referendums when they don't like the outcome.

[scriver]

Any restriction on the freedom of movement, the free flow of goods, and the freedom of inter-national commerce should be in the hands of EU-level institutions, not in those of the individual countries. That would allow for the quarantine measures scriver mentioned - which I'll gladly support - without endangering the unity of our proto-USE.

No, it wouldn't, as we can already see. Health and environment counts for nothing in the EU, and "restricting free trade" is exactly the argument the EU always use against it.

it would be a great step away from the goal of a truly united Europe 

Unity is not a virtuous goal unto itself. A Europe under the boot of the EU as it looks today would not be united, it would be coerced.

[Owlbread]

The primary obstacle to getting anyone other than Belgians and Germans truly enamoured with the European project is if we can actually introduce democracy to the EU, ending the practice of appointing unelected bureaucrats to positions of great power.

Maybe instead of discussing how we could give those bureaucrats even more power, we could discuss finding ways of making EU decision making more transparent, democratic and inclusive? This stuff where the Troika has blatantly been trying to bring about a coup in Greece to force out the democratically elected government has to end.

I mean, am I the only one who thought to himself "I'm European, I'm pro-EU. Greece is getting shafted right now by people I sure as hell didn't elect. Who did?"

[mainiac]

There is democracy, one german, one vote.

The EU has been an abject failure in most of Europe but it has very closely matched the policy preferences of the German electorate.  I dont know why they are enamored with propping up corporate profits with a multi-decade erosion of the purchasing power of the working class but they have succeeded at it both domestically and abroad.  Maybe it's an East-West thing, like the US has a North-South thing.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Why did Varoufakis resign really?

[mainiac]

Speaking truth to power offends EU sensibilities more then giving a backrub to Merkel.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

but was it his call? is he just throwing a fit? giving up?

[mainiac]

Senior troika 'crats dont like him which was an obstacle to the negotiations.  Ironically the people making multi-billion dollar decisions based on personal dislike thought he was "adolescent".

[CaptainMcClellan]

@Helgoland - Not quoting your long post: It's an ideological thing. I'm highly resistant to centralized government or powerful region spanning, corperation-esque government. I prefer to keep power closer to in the hands of the people under the subjugation, albeit necessary subjugation, of government of any kind. In a perfect world with perfect people, I'm an anarchist with no concept of borders, restrictions, etc. But in order to have any kind of anything in the real world with real people, it's just a necessity. Even so! I guess I don't think that "free trade" is worth the increased criminal element, but more so I don't believe in giving a foreign element power over a country which will be abused... At least in Europe the EU can't overturn laws involving domestic affairs like in the US. :| I'm very unhappy with our government. Still, I get that Europe is different in attitudes than the US, it's obvious in the honestly kind of surprising things you've said. Just don't go turning your countries over to powerful morons like we have. Small countries with autonomy and greater independence is better than the whole "One Europe" that seems to be popular. No explanation beyond "It's easier" has ever made any sense to me, but slight inconvenience seems far preferable to me. Then again, I'm not the kind of guy who's ever in much of a hurry, and therefore totally not worth anything in the modern world and should totally be exterminated for the good of Our Glorious One World Government. :p Cos remember kids, government isn't just in the productivity, it's in your heart!™ But whatever, if it works, it works... But when it fails it fails for everyone, which makes it what I don't like.

[GreatJustice]

There really isn't any realistic way for this story to have a positive result. As things stand, the only way the Greek economy could possibly pick up (in real terms, as opposed to just kicking the can down the road for a few years) would be if they completely restructured in a way neither the EU nor the Greek public would accept.

The "ideal life" of the average Greek (between the 90s and 2008, anyway) is to get a comfortable government job for a short time, then retire and open a coffee shop while living mostly off of a very generous pension. This lifestyle is only possible thanks to a combination of debt, good economic conditions elsewhere (which facilitates tourism), and an increasingly overburdened private sector. It is also completely unsustainable, and it will collapse completely regardless of whether it receives the "European" or "American" treatment. Austerity can at least recover some of the losses that have been made by foreign investors, but anyone who thinks the Greeks will benefit from it is delusional. Stimulus, meanwhile, won't even have the illusionary benefits it had in the US since Greece doesn't have the massive financial sector or large exporting industries necessary to fuel even short term growth.

The real issue is that there are many countries that have similar issues to Greece, such as Denmark and Italy. Conceivably they could deal with potential issues pre-emptively, but there is absolutely no political appetite to do so. The EU has done a great job of promoting free trade and travel, two things that have promoted peace and prosperity in Europe, but anything more (eg. standardization of taxes and regulations, a common central bank/currency, etc) creates a system that is always going to benefit some countries at the expense of others.

[smjjames]

There really isn't any realistic way for this story to have a positive result. As things stand, the only way the Greek economy could possibly pick up (in real terms, as opposed to just kicking the can down the road for a few years) would be if they completely restructured in a way neither the EU nor the Greek public would accept.

The "ideal life" of the average Greek (between the 90s and 2008, anyway) is to get a comfortable government job for a short time, then retire and open a coffee shop while living mostly off of a very generous pension. This lifestyle is only possible thanks to a combination of debt, good economic conditions elsewhere (which facilitates tourism), and an increasingly overburdened private sector. It is also completely unsustainable, and it will collapse completely regardless of whether it receives the "European" or "American" treatment. Austerity can at least recover some of the losses that have been made by foreign investors, but anyone who thinks the Greeks will benefit from it is delusional. Stimulus, meanwhile, won't even have the illusionary benefits it had in the US since Greece doesn't have the massive financial sector or large exporting industries necessary to fuel even short term growth.

The real issue is that there are many countries that have similar issues to Greece, such as Denmark and Italy. Conceivably they could deal with potential issues pre-emptively, but there is absolutely no political appetite to do so. The EU has done a great job of promoting free trade and travel, two things that have promoted peace and prosperity in Europe, but anything more (eg. standardization of taxes and regulations, a common central bank/currency, etc) creates a system that is always going to benefit some countries at the expense of others.

So, basically 'Remove Euro!, reinstate Drachma!'?

[CaptainMcClellan]

Any restriction on the freedom of movement, the free flow of goods, and the freedom of inter-national commerce should be in the hands of EU-level institutions, not in those of the individual countries. That would allow for the quarantine measures scriver mentioned - which I'll gladly support - without endangering the unity of our proto-USE.

No, it wouldn't, as we can already see. Health and environment counts for nothing in the EU, and "restricting free trade" is exactly the argument the EU always use against it.

it would be a great step away from the goal of a truly united Europe 

Unity is not a virtuous goal unto itself. A Europe under the boot of the EU as it looks today would not be united, it would be coerced.

Wow, thanks. I couldn't have put it better myself.