[JohnRawls]

I am going to type this only once. This is to understand the current situation and my current opinion on the subject. If you want to disagree then its fine. This is just to clarify for Harmattan and Albert why i think so and how i make my judgements.

First of all. What is European Union? European Union is a union of willing states that want to have unified economic policy at the least. Some of European Union states want to have same fiscal policy, immigration policy etc but not all. This is the clusterfuck that everybody is referring too. With so many states in the union it is pretty hard to get everybody to agree on something. The issue is that the Union was created to be this clusterfuck. It is by desighn at least for now. Why? Well because we have tried the other approach of military forcing others to accept our ideas on certain subjects and failed horribly(Past 5 centuries of european experience). We can not go to heavily centrilised framework simply because the majority will not accept it and the Union will disassemble.(As much as some gung-ho politicians or posters here want) The only way that framework can be reached is by slow steps(Like a snail) or by having some kind of catalyst(China starting to be agressive, America becoming an enemy etc which is arguably worse but somewhere on the horizon). So right now we are stuck where we are stuck. We don't have a fully centralised framework but we have a loose union of states with different opinions on the subject. That is why reaching a deal on anything is an ungodly task. So instead of blaming the EU, you should start blaming citizens in your own country or perhaps even yourself if you don't like this clusterfuck. Are you willing to sacrifice, lets say your tax rate for Europe to decide it? (If not, then you are the problem and the reason why this is happening)

Now when that is cleared, why are we still together? Well alternative is waging war on each other and sacrificing large chunks of our economy which apparently is even worse than this clusterfuck. Rarely people think but what is the alternative: In our case we know what is the alternative because it has been tried for the last 5 centuries with 2 epic world wars where we managed to blow up Europe around 2-3 times (You can add Napoleonic wars to this and call it Pre-world war 1). Do we really want that again?

How is this related to immigration and why has it sparked such emotion within the people? Well first of all, it highlighted that our non-centralised framework is very slow at solving Europe wide problems. It took us half a year to reach this deal if not more. This could have been done a lot faster and lot more efficient if there was somebody who could chug down those decision up our throats, you know like the evil federal government in america. Europe doesn't work in this way so we have this. Also immigration question has been abused by the right-wing movements across Europe to the detriment of the Union. In their eyes dissolution of the Union is the answer but they don't really speak about what should we do after we dissolve it.(They don't provide an alternative) So it made everybody in Europe butthurt be it Pro-Eu and Anti-Eu crowd.

[Harmattan]

@JohnRawls
My problem is not that the EU is a clusterfuck, my problem is that there is an union in the first place. I disagree on the fact that we would only have the choice between war and poverty, or assimilation by the USE. Other regions trade with each other and are not at war. They are poor but only for historical unrelated reasons, just like Europe did not became rich in the previous centuries thanks to its record track of cooperation.

Loose, discrete and unconstrained ad hoc cooperation is what I want. It would also be a clusterfuck but at least we would have the freedom to ignore it when it fails too much and we would only keep what is truly better than the alternative. Kinda like European versions of WTO+NATO. No parliament, no democracy: just the state leaders and civil agents.

I however agree with you on the fact that if one ever does a close union and market, then it needs to be single nation, the USE. Same language, same culture, same identity, same laws, etc. But I reject this single nation model from the bottom of my heart. Anyway it would take a hell of a propaganda and tyranny to destroy existing cultures and identities in only a few decades and until then you would face severe political turmoil. I hope you will have an army of killer drones to maintain your power.


Regarding immigration, deals with other nations always take a long time anyway, so the USE would have not helped much. However it would have forced us to welcome refugees that currently concentrates in Germany, Greece and Sweden. For France it would have been worse.

[noemon]

The fact is we have a lot to learn from each other and if we play it right as I told you before(with my dj-decks analogy) we can in fact create a super/supra-nation, the French have a lot to teach and they also have a lot to learn, us Greeks may not be heavy industrialists but we love life and have rendered living into an art, we can teach you the Zorba, not just the dance but the stance of life. We have a historical opportunity and a historical duty judging from our histories, we should not let this vision slide into oblivion, we can direct the way this is going to pan out, not with reactionism but with activism. Reaction breeds further reaction, strife and balkanisation not just territorial but also ideological, we all want the same things at the end of the day, safety, security, prosperity, freedom to speak our minds, clean air, clean cities and clean seas. What else is there?

France and Germany were at war around 15 times the past 2 centuries, Greece has never been at war with Albania, or anyone from Yugoslavia, no-one from Syria or Lebanon, no-one in Israel/Palestine Egypt or Libya, it has been at war with Turkey alone very few times compared to the wars of the French and the Germans, yet the French and the Germans are working together while Greece is an island among its neighbours where people from these countries are forced into a regime which is like crossing into another continent, no free-trade, no free-movement, going from Greece to Albania requires the same procedure that people require to go to another continent. There are Greek villages in Albania, the Balkans, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Turkey where people speak Greek and proclaim themselves Greeks yet they are further away from Greece than the Finns. This is no longer sustainable or acceptable to someone like me.

[JohnRawls]

Other regions trade with each other and are not at war.

I would disagree. The only regions that have relative peace as USA, Russia and China. They are peaceful to a large degree because those 3 countries enforce that peace with a giant club. There are exceptions like Japan and Australia that are seperate islands and can't be invaded/hard to fight also.

Other regions like Africa, Middle east, South America, large parts of Ocean are basically free for all zones in many places.

[Harmattan]

The fact is we have a lot to learn from each other and if we play it right as I told you before(with my dj-decks analogy) we can in fact create a super/supra-nation

Cultural exchanges do not require a common nation and even less assimilation. Creating a single nation would only bring the destruction of European cultures which will be replaced by a single supra-culture.

And an European mix is as appealing to me than a hamburger stuffed with foie gras and English Jelly, served with a German beer.

Reaction breeds further reaction, strife and balkanisation not just territorial but also ideological, we all want the same things at the end of the day, safety, security, prosperity, freedom to speak our minds, clean air, clean cities and clean seas. What else is there?

Really?! That's all?! Here are some questions with vastly different answers from one country to another:

* Democracy by alternance? By consensus?
* Public consultations? Votations? Referendums? Which conditions?
* Freedom versus order. Which powers for police?
* Privacy versus surveillance. Cameras everywhere? Connected to a facial database?
* Privacy versus economic opportunities (data mining, ad targeting, cost and logistic optimization, ...).
* What is rape? Floor penal sentences? Death sentence?
* Prison for blasphemy? For hate speech? For insulting the president? For homosexuality?
* Religious freedom in the public sphere: juxtaposition versus areligiosity.
* Education: early selection and specialization versus common trunk and leeway.
* Education: personal development and happiness versus knowledge and economic success.
* Education: public versus private.
* Education: which language for the common exams? Which authors for literature?
* Education: collective meals: ham-free food? Halal? Kasher? Vegan?
* Education programs. Which historical periods and geography? Music cursus? Which foreign languages? Mandatory latin? Economy or law?
* Innovation versus safety. GMO? Nuclear?
* Legal abortion? How many weeks? Subsides for contraption? Easy access? What about minors? Surrogate mothers? Gay wedding? Gay adoption? Euthanasia? Legal suicide pills?
* Safety versus danger. Inflation?
* Equality versus capitalism. Redistribution? Flat tax? Wealth tax?
* Medicine: public versus private. Social net?
* Unemployment insurance: public versus private.
* Welfare versus low taxes.
* Working laws: conventions between unions and enterprises or centralized laws? When to use strikes? When to negotiate?
* Culture: a ministry or not? Public subsides? For opera? Contemporary arts? Movies? Video games? Focus on exportable languages? Public TV? In 33 languages? Monuments? Including churches still in use?

For me every power transferred to the EU is removed from democracy. And I do not believe it can be fixed, the EU will never be democratic, just like the USA are not.


That was for the political questions, which are strongly related to your culture. Now the economical ones. Efficiency commands that we concentrate our money on the most dynamic regions and gather the winners there, and encourage people to immigrate there. Are you ok to move Greek industries to France or Germany and encourage Greek people to move there? Or do you expect us to sacrifice our money to invest it in a less profitable way than we could if we were to concentrate it in our home? Even though the result will always be subpar and would be strongly detrimental for France or Germany? In a common market the winner takes all but you will never be the winner.

Other regions like Africa, Middle east, South America, large parts of Ocean are basically free for all zones in many places.

In South America, East Asia and Oceania there are civil wars but rarely wars.

[JohnRawls]

Civil wars are still a war and largely a product of other countries meddling in your afairs be it present or past. Farc rebels, Kurds, Ukraine, Muslim extremists etc have largely been created by foreighn influence but might have survived to our days. Revolutions cost money and usually that money comes from abroad in the modern world.

[noemon]

Efficiency commands that we concentrate our money on the most dynamic regions and gather the winners there, and encourage people to immigrate there. Are you ok to move Greek industries to France or Germany and encourage Greek people to move there? Or do you expect us to sacrifice our money to invest it in a less profitable way than we could if we were to concentrate it in our home? Even though the result will always be subpar and would be strongly detrimental for France or Germany? In a common market the winner takes all but you will never be the winner.

This is a highly simplistic view of industry especially today in the EU where around 70% are service-based industries.

In a common market the winner takes all but you will never be the winner.

And who is "the winner" if I may ask?

As far as I can tell there are things that we are traditional winners and things we are not, same goes for everybody.

[JohnRawls]

Noemon is correct, most of the industry in Europe is service industry. It can't be moved as easily as heavy industry which again is linked to natural resources. There are limitation where and when you can move it. Most of the easy manufacturing industries have left the union long ago(any part of it). Textile industry can be automated but every manufacturer understands that slave labour in asia is a lot cheaper. The question is that we can automate the needed industries to make it profitable but we have no need to because apparently human life in Asia is worth nothing

[Harmattan]

This is a highly simplistic view of industry especially today in the EU where around 70% are service-based industries.

But many services can be moved: creation, IT, finance, etc. I do not think it is that hard and I wonder what is the fraction that is non-local. And you have to subtract the fraction lost by emigration.

And who is "the winner" if I may ask? As far as I can tell there are things that we are traditional winners and things we are not, same goes for everybody.

You are right, but in an open market the less attractive regions lose some of their winners, which are moved elsewhere.

Do your rural areas have rich enterprises network? Of course not. In an European market things are concentrated from the less performing countries to the most ones.

And since you suspect me of claiming we would get your enterprises, France has a mixed position: we won a lot, we lost a lot. But we lost more than we won: only Germany and Eastern European countries have won at the redistribution game.

Anyway let me emphasize my point: concentration is natural and efficient in an open market. Followed by emigration to those concentrated poles. If you were hoping for an uniform development of the European territory, you are warned: it will never happen.

[noemon]

You are right about efficiency in concentrated poles but you need to remember that Germany was described in the early naughties as the sick man of Europe, Sweden went bankrupt in the 90's and the UK was under the IMF boot in the 70's and its stockmarket crashed in the 90's. Greece in contrast was very prosperous, strong and debt-free in the 80's and 90's. Shit happens and the wheels go round and round, Greece would be in a very different situation right now if the Balkans had been integrated in the EU already and her gambling bets had paid off. The Eurozone is a very recent phenomenon in history and some countries have not adapted well into it, both France and Greece being among these countries with Greece being in the worst end of the spectrum at this given moment, but when shit happens people and countries readapt to the new conditions. It is not written in stone that Germans will always win this game and that we will always lose at least more than we earn from it. This is a defeatist mentality that you are promulgating here.

[Harmattan]

It is not written in stone that Germans will always win this game and that we will always lose at least more than we earn from it. This is a defeatist mentality that you are promulgating here.

Sure, things change, and I am actually convinced that in a few decades France will be in a better position than Germany.

But it will take a few decades and until then France will be harmed. How long will it take for Athens? Will it be enough to get back what you already lost and will continue to lose until then? When things will be better, will you agree to see many people from the Balkans and Turkey move to Greece?

Finally I am actually convinced that economy will no longer be very important in a few decades. So what matters economically for me is really the next few decades. And during those Europe will be bad for both of our countries. The European bet is that after a century of impoverishment, dictatorship, identity destruction and instabilities, there will be a great homogeneous empire. Nah, thanks.

[Dr Cosmo]

MEGA - Make Europe great again !!!

[Albert]

^
Is the picture of that women taken by a migrant before he groped her?

[Frollein]

Probably before he sent it to his thirty friends who then gathered to hunt her through the city, as has happened in Kiel.

[mikema63]

It was taken by a professional photographer.

[Frollein]

That's what I said.

[Albert]

Sure Mike sure Mike, that is what they all say.

[Dr Cosmo]

[The Sabbaticus]

Merkel is rolling out a new line of candy across the EU.

[Varilion]

Loose, discrete and unconstrained ad hoc cooperation is what I want. It would also be a clusterfuck but at least we would have the freedom to ignore it when it fails too much and we would only keep what is truly better than the alternative. Kinda like European versions of WTO+NATO. No parliament, no democracy: just the state leaders and civil agents.

Because obviously in WTO and NATO a Bulgarian citizen has the same weight (and voice) of an American one, and the interest of, let's say, Cyprus, are protected as well as those of the US.

(BTW, you said "no democracy" did you? So what's wrong with Bruxelles? too democratic?)

For me every power transferred to the EU is removed from democracy. And I do not believe it can be fixed, the EU will never be democratic, just like the USA are not.

I was going to answer to your first statement when i just read the second one. And well, what can i say? It's not that bad to be as "undemocratic" (or "democratic") as the USA, though i believe we could do better (thanks to a more educated and open minded population).