Thoughts about the European Union.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
mmmmmmmmm... leeks. I made leek soup yesterday.

Croutons?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Croutons?

No, no, no. Homemade stock, leeks, celery, potatoes, cream topped with sharp cheedar and served with crusty bread.

um... go EU?

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
No, no, no. Homemade stock, leeks, celery, potatoes, cream topped with sharp cheedar and served with crusty bread.

Oh, yes. Celery and potatoes definitely the way forward.

A good soup is a blending which can lead to a sum greater than its parts while still retaining each distinct flavour. Very much like the EU in fact. All we need is a peppering of good leadership and the balancing crusty bread of strong accountability.

Or something.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Oh, yes. Celery and potatoes definitely the way forward.

A good soup is a blending which can lead to a sum greater than its parts while still retaining each distinct flavour. Very much like the EU in fact.

Or like the US has been for over 100 years. Although you can actually argue that it has been this way since it's founding.

I had to explain to someone in Indiana the one time what the term melting pot meant. It does not mean that you lose your culture and become part of "white anglo america". But instead people take cultural items from all the different cultures that exist in America. Italians bring things, Irish, blacks, Mexians, Indians and together we share our culture among each other. Americans now celebrate Cinqo de Mayo - at least in New Jersey. We celebrate different festivals that span the globe.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But instead people take cultural items from all the different cultures that exist in America. Italians bring things, Irish, blacks, Mexians, Indians and together we share our culture among each other. Americans now celebrate Cinqo de Mayo - at least in New Jersey. We celebrate different festivals that span the globe.

That's one of the things that makes America great. And one of the reasons I hate the current climate towards asylum seekers and Euroscepticism in general.

More soup! A good, strong stock supplemented with exotic ingredients. Etc.

But not very Tolkien-esque though, eh? I reckon he'd've hated the EU.

[Cirdan]

I don't know. Maybe the master would approve of a last alliance of the free races of the west.

Soup analogies... a beef vegatable is good, but a beef vegatable with a peppery spice is even better. The more ingredients the better.

[Elvellon]

I too believe that he, at least, would agree with the idea, (nations putting aside their differences and working together as one), but I’m not so sure if he would agree with what and how it is being done.

[Dunadan]

Hmmm. Maybe, but I'm not so sure. Don't you think Europe contains too many swarthy men from the South and East for his liking? It's also pretty evident that he hated bureaucracy and arbitrary regulation, which would hardly endear the EU.

Very few people here see the idealism of the EU; too many Brits just see Johnny Foreigner coming over here telling gaffers they can't buy their taters in pounds and ounces any more. I suspect JRRT might have been one of them, but am happy to be educated...

[Elvellon]

Many men of the house of Beor were swarthy, And besides, southern Europeans are Catholic (= Faithful)

The greatest importance of the Pound, (or the Escudo for that matter), is as a national symbol. People may believe they are loosing national identity by sharing the Euro with other nations (including the French and the Germans; that may be thought for some).

Frankly, people seemed to adjust easily enough to the new coin everywhere, I doubt that the Brits would have a special difficulty with it. That said what may be a reason of concern is the monetary policy established by the Central Bank. Personally it is to Neoliberal for my liking. The devotion they seem to have to budget control and inflation control seems to be beyond a healthy outlook.

As for Tolkien seeing the “Eurocracy” as a problem, perhaps. But it certainly isn’t worst that the one we already have in our own countries, so…

[Cirdan]

He might not have liked the Turks as they were not held in high esteem in his formative years.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Frankly, people seemed to adjust easily enough to the new coin everywhere, I doubt that the Brits would have a special difficulty with it. That said what may be a reason of concern is the monetary policy established by the Central Bank. Personally it is to Neoliberal for my liking. The devotion they seem to have to budget control and inflation control seems to be beyond a healthy outlook.

The main reason England didn't want to adopt the Euro is because the pound is stronger. The pound was the strongest currency in Europe prior to the Euro being introduced - and still is since the Euro is worth a little less than a US dollar and the pound I think is currently about $1.60US. I haven't looked at currency rates in a long time. A lot has to do with national pride too - but England would have been negatively impacted by going to the Euro. Most European countries had far weaker currencies than the US - such as Franch and Italy.

The change over to the Euro was not only to make it easier to trade and travel between the countries within Europe - but to also be able to better compete with the US on a monetary level.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The main reason England didn't want to adopt the Euro is because the pound is stronger.

That's true now, but back in 1992 the problem was the reverse: the Exchange Rate Mechanism had overvalued the pound and as a result we had Black Wednesday. I remember it well because I was on holiday at the time and my Sterling traveller's cheques lost 20% of their value overnight. People here still remember that; it trashed the Tories' reputation as being capable of sound economic management and there is a lot of scepticism because of it.

I think the currency has been a success so far, and that the British will come round to it eventually.

[Elvellon]

He might not have liked the Turks as they were not held in high esteem in his formative years.

Ah! But the Turks are not in the EU, nor are they expected to join in the foreseeable future.

The main reason England didn't want to adopt the Euro is because the pound is stronger. The pound was the strongest currency in Europe prior to the Euro being introduced - and still is since the Euro is worth a little less than a US dollar and the pound I think is currently about $1.60US. I haven't looked at currency rates in a long time. A lot has to do with national pride too - but England would have been negatively impacted by going to the Euro.

No to sure about that, and don’t forget that since the Pound is now so strong it hurts British competitiveness, specially when dealing with the other EU nations that joined the Euro. So it may have not been such a good move.

The change over to the Euro was not only to make it easier to trade and travel between the countries within Europe - but to also be able to better compete with the US on a monetary level.

But that was a very tertiary reason. No EU nation would actually been ready to give up their currency for that reason.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
No to sure about that, and don’t forget that since the Pound is now so strong it hurts British competitiveness, specially when dealing with the other EU nations that joined the Euro. So it may have not been such a good move.

Ydes - but I was speaking in terms of why the Euro was rejected initially by Britain. Eventually it'll be beneficial for Britain to convert to the Euro, at the time it wasn't though.

This is an old article - Jan 2000, but it does go over some of the reasons why Britain didn't convert to the Euro and why it might become beneficial for them to do so.

British Euro Sceptics Boosted by Strong Pound
Interest Rates
The economies of the U.S. and Britain are growing at a faster rate than the European economy. The difference in interest rate levels is also another reason why investors prefer British pounds to the Euro. The British increased their official rate from 5.50 % to 5.75 % earlier this month.....

A major stumbling block is the fact that the British economy is showing a stronger growth than the economy in Germany and the average growth figure in the Euro area. Moving closer to the Euro block could halt the current growth. The difference in economic strength also clarifies the contrast between interest rates in Britain and on the Euro-continent. Analysts say that a cut in interest rates in Britain would harm the economy. It would push inflation higher and house prices are likely to jump if mortgages go down by a substantial amount. It would cause a lot of instability.

Is the UK ready for the euro?
it won't be until the end of the economic cycle - when we enter another recession - that it becomes clear whether the UK's economic cycle has aligned with its European neighbours.

Last year, the government's own assessment was noticeably sceptical:

"Currently the UK economy is clearly not in line with many other European countries. Having suffered a deep recession in the early 1990s there has been reasonably strong growth subsequently.

"However, growth in other countries in Europe has generally been much weaker, unemployment is high and there is considerable excess capacity."

The convergence criteria are broadly drawn - and that will give both eurosceptics and euro-enthusiasts plenty to argue about in the years to come.

When a currency is strong - that generally indicates the economy for that country is strong as well. There was a time when Japan's economy looked like it was going to surpass the US and people were talking about the Yen replacing the Dollar as the world's currency. Obvisously Japan's economic golden age was a bubble that their economy has yet to recover from. There has not been any talk of the Yen replacing the US currency in years, nor much fear of Japan overtaking the US as the world's econmic powerhouse.

[Elvellon]

True, a strong currency can be normally associated with a strong economy. The problem is, of course “the other side of the coin,” so to speak (diminished competitiveness).
Frankly, I haven’t seen in the press any real economical argument why the Euro would have been detrimental to the British economy, this would have been true only in the worst-case scenario; the failure of the Euro.

On another subject, I believe the short run “failure” of the Yen was to be expected, considering the globalisation phenomena. However I do believe that the next two decades will se a significant reduction of the role of the Dollar too, with several other currencies increasing their role in the international arena, sharing their role with the Dollar but without any of them achieving supremacy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
True, a strong currency can be normally associated with a strong economy. The problem is, of course “the other side of the coin,” so to speak (diminished competitiveness).
Frankly, I haven’t seen in the press any real economical argument why the Euro would have been detrimental to the British economy, this would have been true only in the worst-case scenario; the failure of the Euro.

At the time that the Euro was going into affect - there would have been a downside to Britain. Britain was the strongest of the European countries economically. Britain would have been lowered down to the EU's economic level at a time that Britain was in growth mode. Why would you want to put the breaks on that? In economics there is an equalibrium - all things being equal. When Britain and the EU come more in line economically - then it will be a good time for Britain to adopt the Euro.

Diminished competiveness is a current affect of Britain not adopting the Euro. with the rest of Europe. The thing is - this will be a gradual change and will only gradually slow England economy. This is in contrast to the 180 degree turn that Britain's ecomony would have faced had they adopted the Euro while Britain was in a finacial upswing while continental Europe was growing at a much slower rate and was not as economically secure.

On another subject, I believe the short run “failure” of the Yen was to be expected, considering the globalisation phenomena. However I do believe that the next two decades will se a significant reduction of the role of the Dollar too, with several other currencies increasing their role in the international arena, sharing their role with the Dollar but without any of them achieving supremacy.

The Euro is being positioned to compete with the dollar. That is one of the reasons for European countries joining the EU. It makes for a more stable currency, better trade, etc. It puts the European countries on a more equal footing with the US. The only two countries in Europe that come close to the economic power of the US are Germany and England. It will make goods cheaper for all people of Europe eventually. Italy doesn't have the 1,759 lira to the dollar exchange rate to worry about anymore like they did in 1997.

[Elvellon]

At the time that the Euro was going into affect - there would have been a downside to Britain. Britain was the strongest of the European countries economically. Britain would have been lowered down to the EU's economic level at a time that Britain was in growth mode. Why would you want to put the breaks on that? In economics there is an equalibrium - all things being equal. When Britain and the EU come more in line economically - then it will be a good time for Britain to adopt the Euro

Well, you are supposing one of two things, apparently; that the monetary policy of the Euro zone would be adverse to British economy or that the Euro would drag down British economy in it’s eventual fall.

The first hypothesis was never a real problem; we know who really dictates the policy of the Central Bank, it would never allow for it.

The second was the “worst case scenario,” that, as we know it, didn’t occur (and was improbable to begin with), and it is becoming increasingly more improbable.

On the other hand, a mild valorisation of the Pound in relation to the Euro can hurt British economy, something that should also be taken into account (and was known to be a possibility). A strong currency may actually have a break effect in a growing economy, under these circumstances.

So this is why I don’t buy the argument that the Euro would have slow down the British economy at the time. Personally I believe it was mostly because of several reasons that Britain remained out:

Public distrust. Politicians didn’t want to risk going against public opinion. (And respecting public opinion is commendable).

Distrust. It would have been unlikely that the Euro would have hurt British economy, but British authorities have always been somewhat distrustful of the other side of the Channel.

Lost of Control. Since the Euro would not be controlled solely by the British government. (However, at the same time the very weight of Euro would make it a more flexible tool that the Pound).

The Euro is being positioned to compete with the dollar. That is one of the reasons for European countries joining the EU. It makes for a more stable currency, better trade, etc. It puts the European countries on a more equal footing with the US. The only two countries in Europe that come close to the economic power of the US are Germany and England. It will make goods cheaper for all people of Europe eventually. Italy doesn't have the 1,759 lira to the dollar exchange rate to worry about anymore like they did in 1997

Well yes, but I’m not only referring to a bipolar world but to a multipolar one (in terms of economy), with all the Pacific economies included.

[jerseydevil]

I dragged this thread up because I came across this article looking at a German News site - German Times...

Time for a pause in Europe's integration efforts

By MELVYN KRAUSS

THE Franco-German axis is proving a nightmare for European unity.

Within a month, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Germany and President Jacques Chirac's France destroyed the European Union's stability pact and endangered European monetary union by demanding - and receiving - special status for French and German fiscal deficits.

Now, the axis has crushed hopes of passing a new European Constitution in Brussels by demanding the so-called 'double majority' rule, which would seriously weaken medium-size and smaller countries' voting power by comparison to what was agreed three years ago in Nice.

European integration cannot afford further defeats. Trust has been decimated. Anger overflows. Small and medium-size EU countries feel tricked.

Will these countries continue to sacrifice for the common European good when, time after time, the big countries tell them to go to the back of the bus and be grateful for the ride?

It's time for a pause in European integration efforts, if only to avoid a complete, irreparable rupture of relations between nations that are supposed to be uniting.

The Germans, in particular, need a time-out to reflect upon the wisdom of their recent bullyboy tactics. Mr Schroeder is providing disastrous leadership for Germany. The country's 'new nationalism' will end in tears for both Germany and Europe.

Have today's Germans really forgotten that Europeanism is not simply the best alternative for Germany but the only alternative?

Yet, after last week's Brussels summit ended in failure, the Germans and their French allies are talking up a 'two-speed' Europe, with the so-called 'pioneer group' of Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries - Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg - going faster and pursuing deeper integration projects than the others.

A 'two-speed' Europe is, however, a euphemism for abandoning or opting out of European integration by Europe's big three. It would decisively split Europe by allowing the big countries and their satellites to go their own way. (The Dutch never would go along with this.) A 'two-speed' Europe means the end of the EU as we know it.

Of course, if the big countries are not willing to sacrifice any measure of national sovereignty for the overall European good, then a united Europe is doomed.

That is why the debate over the stability pact was so important - and why its demise is so disconcerting: the Germans and the French proved willing to sacrifice little, if anything, for the common European interest.

continued...

[jerseydevil]

Now, after the failure to endorse the draft EU Constitution, Mr Schroeder bitterly complains that 'some nations are representing their national interests and have left the European idea behind'. Take a good look in the mirror, Mr Schroeder.

But, notwithstanding recent defeats, it is far too early to give up on an integrated Europe. Mr Chirac and Mr Schroeder - and the current weaknesses in France and Germany that created them - will not last forever. Perhaps improved economic growth will give these countries the strength to throw out their present leaders.

Until France and Germany do change, Europe's game must be a waiting game. Time can solve Europe's problem. That's why a pause now makes good sense.

The smaller EU countries also could benefit from a time-out. Even though the big countries are trying to marginalise them at almost every turn, the small countries cannot unite to fight the common enemy.

This is because they often see themselves having more in common with the big countries than the other small ones. Belgium, for example, is virtually a satellite of France. The same is true of Luxembourg. Austria is closer to Germany than Finland, and so on. Unless the small countries unite on a common front, they will continue to prove easy targets of the big nationalistic players.

On the issue of big versus small countries, Europe has a lot to learn from the United States. Big states comfortably co-exist with small states in the US because America has a bicameral system in which the House of Representatives is based on population, but each state elects two members of the Senate.

The system is very elastic and has shown itself able to accommodate an increasing number of states. The coming accession of 10 new members to the EU would be made much simpler were Europe to find its own equally flexible system.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Copyright: Project Syndicate

Now what is going on with the EU? I knew that there have been problems, I knew the Constitution fell apart. A year ago, when France and Germany were giving the United States such a hard time about Iraq - I had said they were going to cause problems for the European Union; well it seems to be playing itself out now. I wonder how serious this is, if at all.

According this article it doesn't seem like I'm the only one who thinks the EU can learn a thing or two from the US.

[edit] I was just reading over my posts on page 2 from 7/16/2002 - 7/17/2002. I mention the history of the US as well as bring up the House of Representatives and the Senate. I posed the question as to whether the European Union would have a similar system of representation.

BTW - This thread is right up Jonathan's alley and was way before his time here on Entmoot. I hope he'll post some things - hint hint.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Now what is going on with the EU? I knew that there have been problems, I knew the Constitution fell apart. A year ago, when France and Germany were giving the United States such a hard time about Iraq - I had said they were going to cause problems for the European Union; well it seems to be playing itself out now. I wonder how serious this is, if at all.

I don't think the quarrel about Iraq is the cause of the problems we see today. The problems with the Iraq issue and the Constitution are rather both symptoms. The European countries seem to have lost their visions. When it comes to action, national interests still weights more than the common good. Schröeder is quite right there, and it goes for all countries.

As for the Constitution failure, many are blaming Spain and Poland as much as Germany and France for that one, or the bully tactic negotiation leadership of Mr. Berlusconi.

But I'm not too worried about the European Union. There have been 'crises' like this one before. There will be a Constitution, it's just a question of time. Let's not forget that the 15 EU countries and the 10 'newbies' managed to come to an agreement about everything in a 600-page long document, except on that one point. I think that's rather a good sign.